Businessman rugby-tackles girl and sexually assaults her -- gets 6 months in prison

Millicent

TRIGGER WARNING -- Sexual assault details throughout


How out of touch with the realities and traumas of sexual violence can our judiciary continue to be?

This ass:



53 year old aviation broker Anthony Lyon rugby-tackled a girl to the ground as she walked home, fondled her and digitally penetrated her even after she rang the guards and only stopped after a passerby intervened.

The victim's account is reproduced on the Broadsheet here.

Lyons has never bothered to deny the charges blaming his cholesterol medication for his actions (the Twinkie defence, anyone?!). He traumatised that poor girl. But because the judge deems him to be at a low risk of reoffending and a man of means, he gets 6 months in jail and has to pay the girl €75,000.

Is it just me or does this seem like a way to buy off the victim from getting the justice she deserves? As her grandmother is reported to have said, "Money talks".

uriah

Millicent wrote: »

TRIGGER WARNING -- Sexual assault details throughout


How out of touch with the realities and traumas of sexual violence can our judiciary continue to be?


Is it just me or does this seem like a way to buy off the victim from getting the justice she deserves? As her grandmother is reported to have said, "Money talks".

Grandmother said it all.

onimpulse

This is disgraceful! Can the DPP appeal the sentence?

Millicent

onimpulse wrote: »

This is disgraceful! Can the DPP appeal the sentence?

I think they can; at least I would hope so. I'm considering writing to Alan Shatter to voice my disgust at this. I get the distinct impression from him that he wouldn't give a fiddler's. I wonder is it possible to contact the DPP directly on a matter such as this one?

Millicent

Oh Jesus, it gets worse. Found another article where his wife describes him as "kind and gentle". Like when he kindly tackled a girl to the ground and gently ignored her screams for help? Horrible case. :mad:

sandraryan100

As a woman, more importantly, as a feeling human being, I am simply outraged for the victim-genuinely really angry with this verdict. This man did not plead guilty. His victim bravely choose to give evidence. His victim will live with this, and it will take more than 6 months to recover from. I feel the courts have let down all our female friends, sisters, girlfriends, wives and mothers with that judgement today. Pitiful.

Giselle

Millicent wrote: »

I think they can; at least I would hope so. I'm considering writing to Alan Shatter to voice my disgust at this. I get the distinct impression from him that he wouldn't give a fiddler's. I wonder is it possible to contact the DPP directly on a matter such as this one?

I fired off a mail to the Justice Minister today after reading this. I think the more people put who put pressure on the DPP to appeal the cushiness of this sentence, the more a PR nightmare it will be to defend it.

Contact details here:



Minister's Office and Secretary General's Office 94 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2

Phone: + 353 1 602-8202
Lo-Call*: 1890 221-227
Fax: + 353 1 661-5461
Website: www.justice.ie
E-mail: info@justice.ie

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions:

ADDRESS:
Infirmary Road,
Dublin 7,
Ireland.

SWITCHBOARD TELEPHONE:
+ 353 (0)1 858 8500

I can't find an email adress at the moment.

uriah

sandraryan100 wrote: »

As a woman, more importantly, as a feeling human being, I am simply outraged for the victim-genuinely really angry with this verdict. This man did not plead guilty. His victim bravely choose to give evidence. His victim will live with this, and it will take more than 6 months to recover from. I feel the courts have let down all our female friends, sisters, girlfriends, wives and mothers with that judgement today. Pitiful.

Just to be accurate - he did not contest the facts.
She was not obliged to give evidence but opted to do so - brave woman.

Millicent

Giselle wrote: »

I fired off a mail to the Justice Minister today after reading this. I think the more people put who put pressure on the DPP to appeal the cushiness of this sentence, the more a PR nightmare it will be to defend it.

Contact details here:



Minister's Office and Secretary General's Office 94 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2

Phone: + 353 1 602-8202
Lo-Call*: 1890 221-227
Fax: + 353 1 661-5461
Website: www.justice.ie
E-mail: info@justice.ie

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions:

ADDRESS:
Infirmary Road,
Dublin 7,
Ireland.

SWITCHBOARD TELEPHONE:
+ 353 (0)1 858 8500

I can't find an email adress at the moment.

Cheers, G. I'm going to do the same in the morning. I did find an email for the DPP. However, it seems to be that anything relating to a criminal case must go in writing (i.e.not via email)? Anyone know anything about that?

Please note that for reasons of confidentiality the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot accept correspondence relating to criminal prosecution files by e-mail. Any correspondence relating to criminal prosecution files should be in writing and forwarded by post to Infirmary Road as outlined above.
Queries of a general nature can be e-mailed to: dpp@dppireland.ie

Giselle

Millicent wrote: »

Cheers, G. I'm going to do the same in the morning. I did find an email for the DPP. However, it seems to be that anything relating to a criminal case must go in writing (i.e.not via email)? Anyone know anything about that?

Probably something to do with a paper trail.

The_Minister

There are a few points to be made.

Firstly, he got six years, with five and a half suspended - if he breaks the law during that time, the sentence can be reactivated, if he keeps his nose clean it will not.
The five and a half years will hang over him.

Secondly, he never denied the assault, he just claimed that his medication made him do it - that it affected his mind. So it is neither fair nor accurate to say he 'didn't bother' to contest the facts.
The girl was under no obligation to testify, he accepted what he had done.

Millicent

The_Minister wrote: »

There are a few points to be made.

Firstly, he got six years, with five and a half suspended - if he breaks the law during that time, the sentence can be reactivated, if he keeps his nose clean it will not.
The five and a half years will hang over him.

Secondly, he never denied the assault, he just claimed that his medication made him do it - that it affected his mind. So it is neither fair nor accurate to say he 'didn't bother' to contest the facts.
The girl was under no obligation to testify, he accepted what he had done.

Do you think it makes a lot of difference to that girl that it was not a six month sentence, but a six month sentence after five and a half years were suspended?

Secondly, is that sort of suspension of a sentence usual? More importantly (and the bit I'm concerned with), is it justified?

I pointed out in my OP that he claimed that his cholesterol medication made him do it. I treated that assertion with the derision it deserved.

What isn't "fair" is this sentence. I'm unsure as to what your point is here or how you can see this sentence as being in any way justified. I would love to hear your rationale for that one, if that is your point here.

uriah

The_Minister wrote: »

There are a few points to be made.

Firstly, he got six years, with five and a half suspended - if he breaks the law during that time, the sentence can be reactivated, if he keeps his nose clean it will not.
The five and a half years will hang over him.

Secondly, he never denied the assault, he just claimed that his medication made him do it - that it affected his mind. So it is neither fair nor accurate to say he 'didn't bother' to contest the facts.
The girl was under no obligation to testify, he accepted what he had done.

Did somebody say 'he didn't bother to contest the facts'.
I didn't.

What he did to that woman will 'hang over; her for the rest of her life.
At least he is on the sex-offenders register.

hardCopy

"Man of means" Jesus Christ.

The Irish judiciary rarely fail to disgust. Suspended sentence my arse.

Millicent

uriah wrote: »

Did somebody say 'he didn't bother to contest the facts'.
I didn't.

What he did to that woman will 'hang over; her for the rest of her life.
At least he is on the sex-offenders register.

What I said was that he "never bothered to deny the charges blaming his cholesterol medication for his actions." A little different than "he didn't bother to contest the facts".

Littlehorny

What age was this woman? All i can say if she was my daughter that fella assaulted, then he would be begging to be put in prison, cause he'd be safer in there.

Millicent

Littlehorny wrote: »

What age was this woman? All i can say if she was my daughter that fella assaulted, then he would be begging to be put in prison, cause he'd be safer in there.

27, according to Breaking News.

The_Minister

Millicent wrote: »

Do you think it makes a lot of difference to that girl that it was not a six month sentence, but a six month sentence after five and a half years were suspended?

Bluntly, it should.
She may well still consider it to be too small, but there is a huge difference between the two.

Millicent wrote: »

Secondly, is that sort of suspension of a sentence usual? More importantly (and the bit I'm concerned with), is it justified?

It is common practice to suspend part of a sentence, particularly if the perpetrator has never committed a crime before or there are large mitigating factors - it helps keep people on the straight and narrow by leaving it hanging over them for years after they leave prison.

Justified?
I wasn't in the court room so I can only comment on what's in the article.
The Judge clearly decided that for a first offence from someone he didn't believe would offend again it was better to minimise the jail time and maximise compensation (€75,000 ordered is very large).
I think I would have reached a different decision (almost certainly would have based on the article), but I think I can see what balance the judge was going for.

Millicent wrote: »

I pointed out in my OP that he claimed that his cholesterol medication made him do it. I treated that assertion with the derision it deserved.

I don't know that much about medicine but obviously the court agreed with you if he was convicted.

Millicent wrote: »

What isn't "fair" is this sentence. I'm unsure as to what your point is here or how you can see this sentence as being in any way justified. I would love to hear your rationale for that one, if that is your point here.

Not that it's justified, but I think people are looking at this incorrectly - it's wrong but not bonkers

Millicent

The_Minister wrote: »

Bluntly, it should.
She may well still consider it to be too small, but there is a huge difference between the two.

There's a difference but it's about 90 per cent semantic and 10 per cent practical. To the victim, it's the same thing as it is to me and I'd imagine just about every other woman in the country.

The_Minister wrote: »

It is common practice to suspend part of a sentence, particularly if the perpetrator has never committed a crime before or there are large mitigating factors - it helps keep people on the straight and narrow by leaving it hanging over them for years after they leave prison.

Part of a sentence? This is (and this is probably wrong -- my maths skills are atrocious) 1/12 of the sentence, is it not? That's a vastly suspended sentence, even by Irish standards. I've had a quick look but can't find the average portion of a sentence that gets suspended. I'm guessing 11/12 of it isn't the average though.

The_Minister wrote: »

Justified?
I wasn't in the court room so I can only comment on what's in the article.
The Judge clearly decided that for a first offence from someone he didn't believe would offend again it was better to minimise the jail time and maximise compensation (€75,000 ordered is very large).
I think I would have reached a different decision (almost certainly would have based on the article), but I think I can see what balance the judge was going for.

The victim had not requested compensation. I think the attitude of the offender from the final paragraphs of this Irish Times article is clear.

He [Lyon's defence council] handed in a “very large bundle of references” offering “unstinting support” for Lyons. Counsel said that Lyons was willing to pay compensation to the victim but that it was not appropriate to offer this before sentence was passed.

Mr Gageby also asked Judge Hogan to take into account the large amount of media publicity the trial has received and its effect on Lyons’s family.

I would be surprised if that offer of compensation didn't have a contributory effect on the sentencing, in effect the "buying off" of the victim that I was disgusted with in the OP.

The second paragraph of that quote is sickening. No mention of the effect it had on the victim's family and no mention of any remorse on the part of Lyons in any news report that I've read. That to me does not read as someone who deserves to have their sentence reduced.

The_Minister wrote: »

I don't know that much about medicine but obviously the court agreed with you if he was convicted.

Both the jury and a specialist in clinical pharmacology rejected his defence.

The_Minister wrote: »

Not that it's justified, but I think people are looking at this incorrectly - it's wrong but not bonkers

It is bonkers that in this day and age, a sexual criminal can get away with serving six months of a six year sentence, despite showing no remorse, blaming his actions on medication, continuing to assault the woman, fondling and digitally penetrating her, after she phoned the guards and even though she told him she was pregnant. That, to me, is the definition of bonkers.

Millicent

I'd like to add that someone who ignored the fact that his victim had phoned the guards while he assaulted her doesn't sound to me like someone at low risk of re-offending, given his flagrant disregard and lack of fear of the law.

Catari Jaguar

What a disgusting excuse of a man. Pathetic slimeball. Didn't expect anything less from our judicial system - apparently rich people can't be criminals, just look at the bankers and developers.

uriah

Millicent wrote: »

What I said was that he "never bothered to deny the charges blaming his cholesterol medication for his actions." A little different than "he didn't bother to contest the facts".

My post was not in reply to yours, so I wasn't quoting you.
it was in reply to a post from The_Minister.

Millicent

uriah wrote: »

My post was not in reply to yours, so I wasn't quoting you.
it was in reply to a post from The_Minister.

Oh I know. Just wanted to clarify what was actually said as opposed to what was thought to have been said. Sorry. Should have been clearer.

opti76

did she refuse to take the 75k???
i dont know about anyone one else but i wouldn't touch that money .. and id be letting the judge know that in open court too.

darkhorse

I feel sorry for this young woman. Whenever I hear about cases such as this, I can't help feeling ashamed to be a man. I abhor crimes such as this kind of crime against women and there can be no excuse whatsoever.

daenerysstormborn3

Pathetic sentence.

As well as the DPP, I believe the victim also has the right to appeal the sentence because of the nature of the crime.

Humans eh!

Meanwhile..........
No suspended sentences for really dangerous people.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0725/former-director-jailed-for-incorrect-vat-returns.html

Shows where the priorities of the judiciary are firmly rooted.
People who believe that the citizens of this country are anything but there to support the state instead of the state looking after them are deluded.

What I found interesting was..
"The court heard that Hartigan made an early plea to the charges and did not attempt to hide behind his company or his bookkeeper.

It also heard that he had slipped into criminal conduct of which he was ashamed. The loss to the State did not reflect the precise personal gain to him.

The court was told Hartigan’s marriage had broken down, he had fought addiction and that he was now a man of no means living in west Clare on social welfare.

Judge Carol Moran said this was a serious effort to defraud the Revenue and not to punish culprits such as this was unfair to compliant taxpayers."

Other judges apparently don't have the same concern for victims of violent sexual crime.
Crimes against the person mean nothing, money does indeed talk. :mad:

Vive la revolution.

People can bring up how the suspended part of the sentence will "hang over him" but it's completely meaningless. It takes a proper offence to get to court and even then it's down to a judge (those bastions of morals within out society) if the suspended sentence "hanging over" someone is suitable for the latest offence. Is there anything other than manslaughter, murder or false declarations on food imports that would carry more than a 5 year sentence? He's a man of means, he'll find new means when he gets out in a couple of months and I'm sure he'll have got his cholesterol medication under control then too.:rolleyes:

franksm

That's horrific !

At least the victim has the presence of mind to scream and get on the phone, otherwise this would have ended in worse.

There should be an automatic catalog of charges and punishment for this sort of thing, so as not to leave it up to the whims of the 'judge'.

Reminds me of that a$$hole that got off lightly in court a few years ago for rape, and everyone in the hic town was shaking his hand as he was led out of court.

Wibbs

Millicent wrote: »

I would be surprised if that offer of compensation didn't have a contributory effect on the sentencing, in effect the "buying of" of the victim that I was disgusted with in the OP.

This in a big way. I wonder if it was another bloke equally "respected in the community", with no priors on the same meds, but without the means to stump up 75 grand would he get a suspended sentence? I think not. Actually no think about it, he'd get way more than six months.

opti76 wrote: »

did she refuse to take the 75k???
i dont know about anyone one else but i wouldn't touch that money .. and id be letting the judge know that in open court too.

OH I'd not cut my nose off to spite my face. I'd take his money and give it to the rape crisis centre and other such causes. The bastard would be down his cash and others would benefit.

Humans eh! wrote: »

Meanwhile..........
No suspended sentences for really dangerous people.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0725/former-director-jailed-for-incorrect-vat-returns.html

Shows where the priorities of the judiciary are firmly rooted.
People who believe that the citizens of this country are anything but there to support the state instead of the state looking after them are deluded.

What I found interesting was..
"The court heard that Hartigan made an early plea to the charges and did not attempt to hide behind his company or his bookkeeper.

It also heard that he had slipped into criminal conduct of which he was ashamed. The loss to the State did not reflect the precise personal gain to him.

The court was told Hartigan’s marriage had broken down, he had fought addiction and that he was now a man of no means living in west Clare on social welfare.

Judge Carol Moran said this was a serious effort to defraud the Revenue and not to punish culprits such as this was unfair to compliant taxpayers."

Other judges apparently don't have the same concern for victims of violent sexual crime.
Crimes against the person mean nothing, money does indeed talk. :mad:

Vive la revolution.

Perfect example of what's wrong with too many in the Irish judiciary. Celtic tiger cub assaults and finger rapes a pregnant woman, doesn't stop until others intervene gets six months*, yet a bloke going through an unraveling life gets three years for filing incorrect fcuking VAT returns? Jesus fcuking christ. :mad::mad: Then again he wouldn't have the legal team of "it was the meds your honour" bloke. A legal team that went to school with the judges kids etc etc. There's an awful lot of that shíte goes on too in the small world that is the Irish judiciary.


Vive la revolution indeed.


*the suspended sentence is a red herring of a punishment.

jaja321

This judgment absolutely sickens me; the kind of message this sends out to sexual assault and rape survivors. Jesus christ what is wrong with this f*cking country. Judges have far too much discretion when it comes to cases like this, makes my blood boil. :mad:

newport2

opti76 wrote: »

did she refuse to take the 75k???
i dont know about anyone one else but i wouldn't touch that money .. and id be letting the judge know that in open court too.

I don't know, 75k could fund a nice private investigation into the guys past financial affairs, the details of which could be turned over to the revenue and the garda. I'm sure they'd be immaculate of course.

Kooli

I don't really see the point in speculating on what she might or might not do with the €75K - I don't like the insinuation that there is a 'right' thing she should do (refuse it, give it to rape charities).

As far as I'm concerned, she can do what she likes with it. Travel the world, cover herself in diamonds, hire a butler for the year, whatever. She doesn't have to answer to anyone.

jaja321

Am writing to the Minister, the DPP, and my local TDs today.

Sea Filly

The_Minister wrote: »

Secondly, he never denied the assault, he just claimed that his medication made him do it - that it affected his mind.

And this was not deemed acceptable or credible by medical experts.

enda1

Sea Filly wrote: »

And this was not deemed acceptable or credible by medical experts.

Nobody's defending the guy, just correcting the inaccuracies. Christ.

Millicent

enda1 wrote: »

Nobody's defending the guy, just correcting the inaccuracies. Christ.

Inaccuracies that weren't there to begin with. The "Christ" was unnecessary also.

mcmoustache

Hopefully this guy will be known forever as the moneybags who got off lightly for sexual assault. The 6 month punishment is ridiculous.

lazygal

I'm glad he's been named and pictured. Let the name Anthony Lyons, sex offender, be repeated loudly and often. Let his picture be published frequently.

Anthony Lyons, convicted sex offender. Keep that name circulating for the information and safety of every single person in Ireland. He's Anthony Lyons and he's a sex offender.

panda100

The_Minister wrote: »

Not that it's justified, but I think people are looking at this incorrectly - it's wrong but not bonkers

Ah come on, How excatly are people looking at this 'incorrectly'?



Personally, If I was the victim of a sexual assault the last place I would turn for justice is our legal system. It is full of extremely conservative and sexist individuals, whom seem to place money above all else

NCONTHEMC

jaja321 wrote: »

Am writing to the Minister, the DPP, and my local TDs today.

I was truly shocked at the lenient sentence handed down in this case. Last evening I emailed the office of the DPP to enquire how I could register my disgust and dismay at the sentence. Received an email today telling me that
"

Dear ***********

Thank you for your e-mail received this morning.

For reasons of confidentiality this Office cannot accept correspondence
relating to criminal prosecution files by e-mail.  All such correspondence
must be in writing and can be addressed to:  The Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions, Infirmary Road, Dublin 7.

By way of general information I should let you know that only those
directly involved in a prosecution case can write to the DPP to request her
to appeal the leniency of a sentence handed down by the courts.  Those
people are:

  a victim of crime
  a family member of a victim of crime;
  lawyers, doctors and social workers on behalf of their clients.

It is against the law for anyone else to contact the DPP to ask her to
appeal the leniency of a sentence.

I hope this will be of some assistance to you.  Further information is
available in our information booklet 'The Role of the DPP' which is
available on our website at
http://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/information_booklets_-_revised_july_2010/ENGLISH_-_Role_of_the_DPP.pdf

Kind regards,

Helen Cullen

______________________________________
Helen Cullen
Communications and Development Unit
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
90 North King Street
Smithfield
Dublin 7"

So there you have it.
Am actually even more angry now. Next step is contacting my TDs.

Sea Filly

enda1 wrote: »

Nobody's defending the guy, just correcting the inaccuracies. Christ.

By coming up with such a ridiculous, intelligence-insulting excuse, he may have well have denied it. That was my issue with The Minister's post. Christ yourself.

shoos

I'd love to see a comparison of the punishments given out by the Irish justice system compared against other EU countries. This sentence is absolutely laughable, and I'd hope no other EU country would find similar situations.

This has been going on for so long. I'm sick of hearing about sick cases of sexual/physical abuse of women and children and there being nothing for the perpetrator to worry about. And it gets everyone so up in arms every time this happens... yet NOTHING changes. How the hell do we get our government to finally do something about it??

enda1

NCONTHEMC wrote: »

I was truly shocked at the lenient sentence handed down in this case. Last evening I emailed the office of the DPP to enquire how I could register my disgust and dismay at the sentence. Received an email today telling me that
"

Dear ***********

Thank you for your e-mail received this morning.

For reasons of confidentiality this Office cannot accept correspondence
relating to criminal prosecution files by e-mail.  All such correspondence
must be in writing and can be addressed to:  The Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions, Infirmary Road, Dublin 7.

By way of general information I should let you know that only those
directly involved in a prosecution case can write to the DPP to request her
to appeal the leniency of a sentence handed down by the courts.  Those
people are:

  a victim of crime
  a family member of a victim of crime;
  lawyers, doctors and social workers on behalf of their clients.

It is against the law for anyone else to contact the DPP to ask her to
appeal the leniency of a sentence.

I hope this will be of some assistance to you.  Further information is
available in our information booklet 'The Role of the DPP' which is
available on our website at
http://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/information_booklets_-_revised_july_2010/ENGLISH_-_Role_of_the_DPP.pdf

Kind regards,

Helen Cullen

______________________________________
Helen Cullen
Communications and Development Unit
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
90 North King Street
Smithfield
Dublin 7"

So there you have it.
Am actually even more angry now. Next step is contacting my TDs.

Do you really feel that your indignation should affect the DPP?
Secondly, a central tenant of successful democracy is the separation of the judiciary and government. Hopefully your TD listens to you regarding future law change/implementation, but not regarding this particular case and it's judgement.

Sea Filly wrote: »

By coming up with such a ridiculous, intelligence-insulting excuse, he may have well have denied it. That was my issue with The Minister's post. Christ yourself.

Well that's irrelevant to what I said. Again no one is supporting/defending the guy. It's just that it seems blind rage is twisting the accuracies of the issue.

Sea Filly

enda1 wrote: »

Well that's irrelevant to what I said. Again no one is supporting/defending the guy. It's just that it seems blind rage is twisting the accuracies of the issue.

Well, what I know based on the accuracies of the case is that serving six months out of six years is an insult to the victim. No blind rage here.

The_Minister

Sea Filly wrote: »

By coming up with such a ridiculous, intelligence-insulting excuse, he may have well have denied it. That was my issue with The Minister's post. Christ yourself.

If you don't like having someone correct you on important legal facts, don't get them wrong.


Firstly he admitted all the facts which simplifies matters hugely, and would have taken away the onus on the victim to testify if she didn't want to. It would also have shortened the trial significantly.


Secondly, the excuse is not intelligence-insulting.

What he claimed was that he was on medication which reacted adversely with alcohol, causing him to lose control.
I remember being on a night out with a girl who was on anti-biotics and got legless on two pints - we all thought she was an idiot, but it turns out that she had no idea that alcohol was one of those medicines, which if mixed with alcohol, can have strong and unpredictable results.

I also remember being out with a man with Crohn's (sp?) Disease and the same thing due to his medication - we were drinking absinthe, and I got tipsy and he ended up plastered, even though the amount he took was well within his normal tolerances.

(Moral: always check that the medication wou are taking can be safely mixed with alcohol)

Obviously the court rejected the excuse in this case, but so far I've seen nothing to say why, and since it was a jury we will probably never know.
- It could be that he was on the medication a while and so they felt he should have known the effects
- They believe it didn't completely compromise his thinking so as to remove liability
-They thought he was a lying chancer etc.

It's an excuse that in certain circumstances could be valid, in this one it wasn't.

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote: »

If you don't like having someone correct you on important legal facts, don't get them wrong.


Firstly he admitted all the facts which simplifies matters hugely, and would have taken away the onus on the victim to testify if she didn't want to. It would also have shortened the trial significantly.


Secondly, the excuse is not intelligence-insulting.

What he claimed was that he was on medication which reacted adversely with alcohol, causing him to lose control.
I remember being on a night out with a girl who was on anti-biotics and got legless on two pints - we all thought she was an idiot, but it turns out that she had no idea that alcohol was one of those medicines, which if mixed with alcohol, can have strong and unpredictable results.

I also remember being out with a man with Crohn's (sp?) Disease and the same thing due to his medication - we were drinking absinthe, and I got tipsy and he ended up plastered, even though the amount he took was well within his normal tolerances.

(Moral: always check that the medication wou are taking can be safely mixed with alcohol)

Obviously the court rejected the excuse in this case, but so far I've seen nothing to say why, and since it was a jury we will probably never know.
- It could be that he was on the medication a while and so they felt he should have known the effects
- They believe it didn't completely compromise his thinking so as to remove liability
-They thought he was a lying chancer etc.

It's an excuse that in certain circumstances could be valid, in this one it wasn't.

So, to summarise, you're implying that it wasn't his fault because he was locked.


Fúck sake.

The_Minister

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

So, to summarise, you're implying that it wasn't his fault because he was locked.


Fúck sake.

:rolleyes:
Would you ever just calm down and read what I said?

I'm trying to be objective and accurate - I still think it was (on the facts that I know of) a wrong decision, it just grates on me when people get the facts wrong.

The_Minister

By the way, if people want to actually change things going forward, rather than writing to the DPP (which I'm almost certain is a no-no anyway), they might write to the papers.

Irish Times letters page is full today of complaints.


Fill every letters page of every paper and it's far more likely politicians will change things.

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Would you ever just calm down and read what I said?

I'm trying to be objective and accurate - I still think it was (on the facts that I know of) a wrong decision, it just grates on me when people get the facts wrong.

The facts?

How about this, if there is a chance that you might try and violently rape someone when you are drunk, then don't get drunk and control yourself. Otherwise you go to prison for a very long time.

Getting drunk does not absolve you of your behaviour in the slightest, whether mixed with medication or not. If you think that it mitigates his actions even an inch, especially in a case such as this, then you're simply wrong.

Sea Filly

The_Minister wrote: »

Secondly, the excuse is not intelligence-insulting.

What he claimed was that he was on medication which reacted adversely with alcohol, causing him to lose control.
I remember being on a night out with a girl who was on anti-biotics and got legless on two pints - we all thought she was an idiot, but it turns out that she had no idea that alcohol was one of those medicines, which if mixed with alcohol, can have strong and unpredictable results.

I also remember being out with a man with Crohn's (sp?) Disease and the same thing due to his medication - we were drinking absinthe, and I got tipsy and he ended up plastered, even though the amount he took was well within his normal tolerances.

(Moral: always check that the medication wou are taking can be safely mixed with alcohol)

Your friends got more drunk than usual while on meds. This is not unusual and no-one would think it is. VERY different to what this cretin claimed. A bit drunker than usual isn't a change of behaviour. It's just more drunk than usual.

It is VERY intelligence-insulting, IMO.

As for facts. Fine, he didn't deny it. He just came up with a ridiculous, Twinkie defence excuse. That's much better.