Autrefois convict

johnnyskeleton

How does this make any sense:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0113/1224310195439.html

Pleaded guilty to attempted murder when the victim was in a vegetative state, since died, now being tried for murder. The offending behaviour is identical, the dpp had as much time as they wanted to decide when to prosecute and the judge almost certainly took the victims condition into account when sentencing. At the very least, the accused should be permitted to vacate his plea to attempted murder and be retried afresh?

Ken.

Just to tag on to your query johnny if you don't mind. Is their a double jeopardy law in Ireland? and if so would it not count in the case johnny mentions?.

johnnyskeleton

lucyfur09 wrote: »

Just to tag on to your query johnny if you don't mind. Is their a double jeopardy law in Ireland? and if so would it not count in the case johnny mentions?.

Autrefois convict and autrefois acquit are the two types of double jeopardy rules in ireland. Both of them have a level of difficulty to them and are raised at the outset of a case or sometimes by Jr. There's also an option to Jr on the basis of unfair procedures.

This sets a dangerous trend - a plea to attempted murder usually means the difference between a life sentence and a finite sentence. But murder is mandatory life. He may have pleaded to secure the lower sentence, now that he is being tried for murder as well one gets the sense that he is being trussed up like a turkey.

Ken.

He got 14 years for the attempted. Life in Ireland with good behaviour is about 15 years. Why is taxpayer money being wasted to tag another year or 2 onto his sentence.It boggles the mind.

jblack

Another tag on - are the DPP obliged to prosecute in circumstances where the victims injuries change, from those at conviction stage, as a direct result of the offence?

Life still is life Lucyfur - despite maybe only serving 15 years in prison, a lifer will still always be subject to certain conditions and are never actually released.

theAwakening

sentencing-wise, i assume his upcoming murder sentence will run concurrent with 12 years already imposed? will be interesting to see the submissions of defence counsel on this one.

Ken.

theAwakening wrote: »

sentencing-wise, i assume his upcoming murder sentence will run concurrent with 12 years already imposed? will be interesting to see the submissions of defence counsel on this one.

I'm not a law professional but how could any sentence be concurrent for what is essentially the same crime. Or am i completely wrong.

Carawaystick

some general questions/queries

If a person convicted of attempted murder was then acquitted of murder, are they now innocent, or does the attempted murder conviction still hold?

Is it correct that in general a more serious charge can be made re. an incident or after a conviction, but not a less serious charge?

There seems to be a long time between the shooting and the death in this particular case. Am I right that in general it's only murder if the shooting injuries lead to the death, and complications such as pneumonia/mrsa/other hospital issues are not?
Or would an indirect chain of events be fine for the charge to hold?


lastly, meant to ask the meaning of autrefois
If it's from french autre is other
fois?

mcmoustache

Carawaystick wrote: »

If it's from french autre is other
fois?

time

jblack

Carawaystick wrote: »

lastly, meant to ask the meaning of autrefois
If it's from french autre is other
fois?

Autrefois means once, formerly etc.

Autrefois convit - previously convicted.
Autrefois acquit -previously acquitted.

Victor

Isn't there a rule that a murder victim has to die within a year of the event?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Jr.

What is this?

ResearchWill

Victor wrote: »

Isn't there a rule that a murder victim has to die within a year of the event?
What is this?

Judicial Review.

Milk & Honey

Victor wrote: »

Isn't there a rule that a murder victim has to die within a year of the event?
What is this?

No. There once was. Abolished some years ago. There has to be proof that the injury was a substantial operating cause of the early death of the victim. At one time it was deemed that if a year from the injury had elapsed it was too uncertain to conclude that the injury had hastened death.

The attempted murder conviction will not be brought to the attention of the jury. No evidence was heard in relation to that charge so the accused is not prejudiced in conducting any defence he may have. If he is acquitted of the murder charge the attempt conviction will still stand.