Claire Nolan Sentenced to 6 years for running over old man nextdoor

Stiffler2

Well there you have it, she was sentanced to 6 years for running over the old man next door.

Her excuse : I was trying to run down the son

Court Case is now over and she has been sentanced. Couldn't find another thread about this and since it's over we can talk about it now ??

Anyway - linky - http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0312/duffym.html

Quotey :

A Dublin mother who admitted killing a father-of-four after she crushed him with her car has been jailed for six years.

Claire Nolan, aged 25, of Sheephill Green in Blanchardstown, drove into Michael Duffy and crushed the 66-year-old against his son's house on 26 January 2008.
Mr Justice Paul Carney said today that this was an assault with a car, driven by a woman out of control on drink and drugs.

He said she fled the scene and attempted to destroy evidence by torching the car.
Judge Carney said alcohol and drugs were no defence. Regarding Ms Nolan's claim of turning her life around, the judge said that may or may not be the case in time.

He said he has no idea how she will respond when she comes to terms with serving a significant sentence in prison.

Judge Carney sentenced her to eight years in prison. He said the only factor in her favour was her guilty plea and he suspended two years


================================================

So if some aul junky looking scumbag hag ran over your old man and got 6 years How would you Feel about it ??

Lest not forget that if this was a man the sentance would be probably 12 yrs +
I would also like you to note that the garlic scam man also got 6 yrs ??

In your opinion does stealing a bit of garlic just as bad as murdering / running over someone on purpose ? The justice system seems to think so anyway.........


Thoughts ?

CardBordWindow

But she didn't run over him, she drove!

Seifer

This crime is clearly on par with scamming the tax man on garlic imports and so deserves the same sentence.

DrumSteve

Should have got more.

ronan45

She was a true Gurrier this one. Had a list as long as your arm for previous offences too. Nasty bit of work

ejmaztec

ronan45 wrote: »

She was a true Gurrier this one. Had a list as long as your arm for previous offences too. Nasty bit of work

She'll be even nastier when she gets out.

SeaFields

There is a mandatory sentence when your convicted of murder. There really needs to be one for manslaughter and it needs to be fairly lengthy.

That mans family must feels horribly betrayed by the justice system today.

pickarooney

It's not murder if you kill the wrong person??

micropig

She'll be out next week

Rabidlamb

Seifer wrote: »

This crime is clearly on par with scamming the tax man on garlic imports and so deserves the same sentence.

and they wonder why people have a lack of faith in the justice system.

benway

SeaFields wrote: »

There is a mandatory sentence when your convicted of murder. There really needs to be one for manslaughter and it needs to be fairly lengthy.

8 years isn't lengthy now?

The whole point of manslaughter is that it's less morally culpable than murder, that the person didn't intend to kill, even if they acted recklessly. So no, there doesn't need to be mandatory life for manslaughter.

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

I'm gonna love this thread, I'm sure.

Dudess

Seifer wrote: »

This crime is clearly on par with scamming the tax man on garlic imports and so deserves the same sentence.

Obviously it's way worse, but OP, you also obviously know the guy didn't just steal "a bit of garlic". The obtuseness on this forum at times...

The bitch deserves a lot longer IMO - btw no way WHATSOEVER of knowing that if a guy did it he'd get specifically 12 years. Aren't there regularly stories posted here about men getting piss-weak sentences for awful crimes? Any opportunity for an auld "women have it better" snipe though...

Dudess

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Seifer wrote: »

This crime is clearly on par with scamming the tax man on garlic imports and so deserves the same sentence.

and they wonder why people have a lack of faith in the justice system.

I doubt anyone wonders that.

DrumSteve

benway wrote: »

8 years isn't lengthy now?

The whole point of manslaughter is that it's less morally culpable than murder, that the person didn't intend to kill, even if they acted recklessly. So no, there doesn't need to be mandatory life for manslaughter.

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

I'm gonna love this thread, I'm sure.

She was trying to kill, she just hit the wrong person.

Seachmall

benway wrote: »

8 years isn't lengthy now?

The whole point of manslaughter is that it's less morally culpable than murder, that the person didn't intend to kill, even if they acted recklessly. So no, there doesn't need to be mandatory life for manslaughter.

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

No one in their right mind believes crushing a man against a wall in a car isn't going to be a fatal act.

Her intention was to kill, not injure, him. In this case the extreme violence of her actions betrays her intention. She only got manslaughter because she killed the wrong person.

And no, 8 years is not a lengthy sentence.

Duggy747

Want to kill an enemy but don't want to do the full time?

Just pretend that you're trying to kill his mate and "accidently" kill your enemy instead.

Everybody is a winner! :pac:

dubtom

SeaFields wrote: »

There is a mandatory sentence when your convicted of murder. There really needs to be one for manslaughter and it needs to be fairly lengthy.

That mans family must feels horribly betrayed by the justice system today.

Manslaughter is when you don't intend to kill, innocent people commit manslaughter everyday with no malice,no intent,purely accidental, should they have to suffer your lenghty prison sentences.

wes

I find it odd, that she was charged with murder. She should have been charged with murder and not man slaughter. As it stands she is getting off with a very light sentence.

SeaFields

dubtom wrote: »

Manslaughter is when you don't intend to kill, innocent people commit manslaughter everyday with no malice,no intent,purely accidental, should they have to suffer your lenghty prison sentences.

She was trying to kill the son but hit the father.

Dudess

benway wrote: »

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

Making up what people think - not great debating.

I certainly don't think corporate criminals should get away with it - can you point out anyone else on this thread who gives an indication of same? The garlic guy deserved to be punished - being of the view he didn't deserve six years isn't the same as saying he should get nothing for it. But seeing as there are violent crimes that get lesser sentences, and seeing as Sean Fitzpatrick et al are walking free, six years is too harsh for him IMO.

As for this woman, I condemn her for her actions end of, not for being a junkie or coming from deprived circumstances.

eviltwin

She claimed her intention was to hit the son but we only have her word for that. In my eyes when you drive your car at someone who is against a wall with no where to run you intend to do a lot more than just tap them.

big_heart_on

Ireland is full of laws, but little justice apparently.

I think prison should be reserved primarily for violent or sexual crimes, not tv licenses etc.

I always remember a judge giving a first offence father of 3, 3 months in prison for having a €20 bit of hash, or another guy went to prison for wearing a sex pistols "never mind the boll...." t-shirt to court on a very minor charge. Stupid, but worthy of prison time?

I've always thought irish judges are "pillars of the establishment" types, products of another era, and rather bizarrely for their position, out of touch with the reality of life for most people.

stovelid

It's terrible. Terrible so it is.

SEPT 23 1989

The Garlic man made the mistake of messing with the State

had this girl run over a senior civil servant or a politician she would be behind bars for a lot longer than 6 years

benway

Dudess wrote: »

Making up what people think - not great debating.

Stiffler2 wrote: »

So if some aul junky looking scumbag hag ran over your old man and got 6 years How would you Feel about it ??

Lest not forget that if this was a man the sentance would be probably 12 yrs +
I would also like you to note that the garlic scam man also got 6 yrs ??

In your opinion does stealing a bit of garlic just as bad as murdering / running over someone on purpose ? The justice system seems to think so anyway.........


Thoughts ?

*ahem*

Compare, contrast. No implied bias in the OP, oh no.

In my experience, these threads don't leave any room for debate anyway, they're basically "I hate scumbags more, no I hate scumbags more, arrah the country's going to hell in a hand-cart; yerrah, it is alright" circle jerks, and there's no point trying to reason with that.

But, because I'm a sucker for punishment, yet again, you're not comparing like with like, there are pressing reasons why "garlic scam man" deserved a substantial custodial sentence, what other people are getting for other crimes is irrelevant. It's also dangerous to make assumptions as to the appropriate sentence based on media soundbites. The reality, if you'd been there for the whole trial, may have been quite different.

Dudess

benway wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Making up what people think - not great debating.

Stiffler2 wrote: »

So if some aul junky looking scumbag hag ran over your old man and got 6 years How would you Feel about it ??

Lest not forget that if this was a man the sentance would be probably 12 yrs +
I would also like you to note that the garlic scam man also got 6 yrs ??

In your opinion does stealing a bit of garlic just as bad as murdering / running over someone on purpose ? The justice system seems to think so anyway.........


Thoughts ?

*ahem*

Compare, contrast. No implied bias in the OP, oh no.

In my experience, these threads don't leave any room for debate anyway, they're basically "I hate scumbags more, no I hate scumbags more, arrah the country's going to hell in a hand-cart; yerrah, it is alright" circle jerks, and there's no point trying to reason with that.

But, because I'm a sucker for punishment, yet again, you're not comparing like with like, there are pressing reasons why "garlic scam man" deserved a substantial custodial sentence, what other people are getting for other crimes is irrelevant. It's also dangerous to make assumptions as to the appropriate sentence based on media soundbites. The reality, if you'd been there for the whole trial, may have been quite different.

While I agree there is a fetish here for going on about "scumbags", look at what she did. That's all I'm doing - I'm not interested in her background. How could there be bias when she crushed a man into a wall with her car until he died?

I fully see your point about rabble-rousing but there's no need to be disingenuous in relation to the crime either.

ArmaniJeanss

wes wrote: »

I find it odd, that she was charged with murder. She should have been charged with murder and not man slaughter.

She was tried for murder on two occasions.
On both occasions two seperate juries, who heard over 11 days of evidence as opposed to a 300 word After Hours summary were unable to agree on a murder verdict.

odnauq

pickarooney wrote: »

It's not murder if you kill the wrong person??

Like friendly fire?

Ellis Dee

A nasty piece of work all right. Let's hope she ends up sharing a cell with a big diesel-model bulldyke who'll knock some of the rough corners off her.:):):)

odnauq

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The Garlic man made the mistake of messing with the State

had this girl run over a senior civil servant or a politician she would be behind bars for a lot longer than 6 years

I will agree with that - 6 years for murder is a crime in itself.

ejmaztec

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

She was tried for murder on two occasions.
On both occasions two seperate juries, who heard over 11 days of evidence as opposed to a 300 word After Hours summary were unable to agree on a murder verdict.

Those judges would have saved an awful lot of time and tax-payers' money, had they registered on boards and acted on our learned opinions.

In fact, Boards should have a special forum, run on the lines of Judge Judy, and we can scrap the entire legal system overnight. We can handle anything.:cool:

Seachmall

benway wrote: »

*ahem*

Compare, contrast. No implied bias in the OP, oh no.

In my experience, these threads don't leave any room for debate anyway, they're basically "I hate scumbags more, no I hate scumbags more, arrah the country's going to hell in a hand-cart; yerrah, it is alright" circle jerks, and there's no point trying to reason with that.

But, because I'm a sucker for punishment, yet again, you're not comparing like with like, there are pressing reasons why "garlic scam man" deserved a substantial custodial sentence, what other people are getting for other crimes is irrelevant. It's also dangerous to make assumptions as to the appropriate sentence based on media soundbites. The reality, if you'd been there for the whole trial, may have been quite different.

I'm glad you proceed to join us in our circle-jerk anyway, however comparative sentencing is very relevant which is why legal precedents are an important factor in law.

But you're right, this isn't like with like. One intentionally killed a man in cold blood, the other avoided paying tax.

And if you don't want bias best to stay off AH, and the internet in general. In fact I wouldn't converse with many people if I were you.

Cianos

ejmaztec wrote: »

Those judges would have saved an awful lot of time and tax-payers' money, had they registered on boards and acted on our learned opinions.

In fact, Boards should have a special forum, run on the lines of Judge Judy, and we can scrap the entire legal system overnight. We can handly anything.:cool:

Good idea!

[ ] Innocent
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Atari Jaguar

Paparazzo

benway wrote: »

8 years isn't lengthy now?

Not for killing someone.
Murder should have a sentence more like 40 years, manslaughter about 20.

ejmaztec

Cianos wrote: »

Good idea!

[ ] Innocent
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Atari Jaguar

Most people on here wouldn't bother with the 1st or the 3rd choice.:(

Stiffler2

Paparazzo wrote: »

Not for killing someone.
Murder should have a sentence more like 40 years, manslaughter about 20.

Well you can't have manslaughter without laughter...
Manslaughter IMO should be kept for people like :

drink drivers accidently killing someone.
Someone whol killed someone accidentaly
and so on

Clearly this was murder and she should have been sentanced as such.
She did not accidentely run this man over, she clearly got into her car and ran him down in the driveway. Nothing accidental about it.

Garlic man steals some garlic and gets 6 years as well - ridiculous.

Garlic man should have got maybe 1 - 2 yrs
This Kunt should have gotten 20 to life

goose2005

Cianos wrote: »

Good idea!

[ ] Innocent
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Atari Jaguar

In scotland they have that, you can be Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven (the jury think you did it but not beyond a reasonable doubt; you can be retried without double jeopardy applying)

paddyandy

Cianos wrote: »

Good idea!

[ ] Innocent
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Atari Jaguar

That's overly flattering and in bad taste .Half of the posters on Boards.ie would have their polling cards withdrawn if making judgement was a prerequisite .

44leto

This IMO was a travesty of justice,,have I missed new legislation that excuses your behavior because you were Hi.

"You are accused of intentionally crushing a man to death in your car", "how do you plead", "your honour I was pissed",,,"OH why wasn't I told this, case dismissed and the court apologizes for the inconvenience" .

Son Of A Vidic

More evidence if ever any more was needed, of the shocking and insulting judicial sentencing patterns in this country. She should be serving life for her crime, because it was nothing less than an attempt to murder her target. It is irrelevant that she killed the wrong person, because she set out with clear and deliberate intent to kill.

I only hope the victim quickly lost consciousness, which he most likely did. Because he suffered horrific injuries, included a transected (severed) spinal column. Yet this bítch will be out in 3-4 years, minus any time already served if any. At the end of the day, it's the clowns in the judiciary I blame for this bullshít sentencing.

up for anything

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Lest not forget that if this was a man the sentance would be probably 12 yrs +
I would also like you to note that the garlic scam man also got 6 yrs ??

This is getting old. :rolleyes:

Frank Black

Serious question.

Why, in any media reporting of the incident, is Claire Nolan referred to as 'Mother of one, Claire Nolan'?

You never hear of a man being convicted of a serious crime being called 'Father of two Black Francis'.

I find it strange.

SeanW

benway wrote: »

there are pressing reasons why "garlic scam man" deserved a substantial custodial sentence

Noone is arguing that per se, but I think its fair to consider that if you can't pay back your loan, don't pay your TV License fines or cheat the taxman, you are more likely to go to jail and serve a longer sentence than if you commit a violent crime or a crime against a person or their property.

This is a messed up state of affairs and people are right to feel aggrieved about it.

It's also dangerous to make assumptions as to the appropriate sentence based on media soundbites. The reality, if you'd been there for the whole trial, may have been quite different.

I'm not sure how complicated it could be - she tried to murder one person but instead killed another.

Frankly, you sound like Garlic Man's crime was to be a successful businessman, and that if instead he had donned a hoodie and went around setting cars on fire you would have had sympathy for his personal circumstances and difficult upbringing and blah blah blah

6 years (reduced with time served and "good behaviour" for manslaughter plus attempted murder is a travesty of justice.

af_thefragile

Not directly related to the topic but its sorta funnt that when a man attacks someone in his house (wife, partner etc.) then its classified as attempted murder but when a women attacks the man, its classified as domestic voilence!

Dermighty

I'm delighted, stupid bitch should be shot.

LuckyLloyd

After Hours demonstrating its group intelligence yet again. I wonder how many more people will come in and post along the lines of 'SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER, NOT MANSLAUGHTER'.

I do give some blame to the RTE piece, but still.

SeanW

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

After Hours demonstrating its group intelligence yet again. I wonder how many more people will come in and post along the lines of 'SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER, NOT MANSLAUGHTER'.

I do give some blame to the RTE piece, but still.

She should have been charged with attempted murder. And manslaughter.

Dudess

af_thefragile wrote: »

Not directly related to the topic but its sorta funnt that when a man attacks someone in his house (wife, partner etc.) then its classified as attempted murder but when a women attacks the man, its classified as domestic voilence!

Is that definitely true?

benway

Seachmall wrote: »

comparative sentencing is very relevant which is why legal precedents are an important factor in law.

The precedents say that crimes are sentenced based on both the precise individual circumstances of the offence, and the precise, individual circumstances of the accused. You could check the 1993 Law Reform Commission Report for a good summary. With how the system operates, it's meaningless to compare sentences for different offences, by different offenders. There's also a recent decision setting out the policy basis for imposing substantial prison sentences on dole frauds or tax evaders, which no-one seems interested in.

Black Francis wrote:

Why, in any media reporting of the incident, is Claire Nolan referred to as 'Mother of one, Claire Nolan'?

You never hear of a man being convicted of a serious crime being called 'Father of two Black Francis'.

Papers tend to spin these reports into one-dimensional reality plays, based more on evoking feelings in the reader than informing them - generally it works the other way, though : pretty mum *victim*, preyed upon by thug *accused*. I'm always very wary of adjectives in these stories.

It's pretty much impossible to condense a week-long criminal trial into 100 words - these reports should be taken with a pinch of salt, to say the least.

Anfield Road

I feel sorry for the victims family she is a nasty piece of work and to make it worse the day before she killed that poor man she got a 3 year suspended sentence for sale & supply of cocaine!, read that in the paper. So, the horrible cow was out celebrating getting away with another of her crimes and then takes a life. She got 6 years, which means she will serve 4 but will probably get a few month off that even unless she does it to the end due to the severity of her crime. By the looks of her prison won't bother her, she looks like she will be well able to survive in there.
That man got a terrible death and I could never understand how the jury could not reach a verdict on the murder charge.
I hope his family can stay strong but I think the sentence was disrespectful to the. Like that is the 2 years suspended all about???. Give her the whole 8 years!.

Seachmall

benway wrote: »

which no-one seems interested in.

Because it's not the topic of discussion...