Duo who burned speed van spared prison term

opti0nal

From the Irish Independent:

TWO men who set fire to a speed detection van while its operator was inside have avoided jail.
Martin Gowan (20) of Bolaney, Hollyfort, and Darragh Byrne (20), of Pine Cottage, Kilmurray, both Gorey, Co Wexford, pleaded guilty to causing damage by fire to a speed van, property of Road Safety Operations Ireland, on March 13, 2011.........Judge Thomas Teehan imposed a sentence of seven years, but suspended this on condition that both defendants enter a bond of €100 to keep the peace for seven years.

These guys must have had good lawyers.

But I presume they'll be liable for the damage.

How much does one of those vans cost?

Pdfile

well before everyone jumps in saying how terrible these men are, how stupid to burn the van out etc... calm your horses, we all hate these as much as we hate the vans and operation itself. I think we should all focus our efforts into getting a jcb wth 2 large boulders.

put one either end of a speed van kissing its bumpers. u mad camera man ?

KTRIC

Sure they're no worse than murders, terrible carry on altogether :rolleyes:

Ok, I'm off to Wexford for the bank holiday weekend to buy some lads a pint :pac:

Cienciano

A fine? They should have been given medals

MugMugs

They got off exceptionally light..... Judge probably feels the same way as me....

Terrontress

The issue isn't with the guys operating them, it's the rotten system which sends them out. These guys are just trying to earn a few Euro in tough times.

MugMugs

OSI wrote: »

Whatever about setting fire to a speed camera, setting for to a vehicle with a man inside it is utterly disgusting regardless of his occupation. And I'm quite shocked to see people condoning their behaviour.

I can't see where this has been condoned on this thread......

MagicMarker

MugMugs wrote: »

I can't see where this has been condoned on this thread......

..

Cienciano wrote: »

A fine? They should have been given medals

catastrophy

I can't see how anyone can condone what happened, flippantly or otherwise. It was a cowardly act.

Reg'stoy

MugMugs wrote: »

I can't see where this has been condoned on this thread......

KTRIC wrote: »

Sure they're no worse than murders, terrible carry on altogether :rolleyes:

Ok, I'm off to Wexford for the bank holiday weekend to buy some lads a pint :pac:

Cienciano wrote: »

A fine? They should have been given medals

MugMugs wrote: »

They got off exceptionally light..... Judge probably feels the same way as me....

So wanting to buy them pints, give them medals plus your nudge nudge, wink wink comment about a Judge giving them a light sentence because he too dislikes speed vans, is not condoning what they did, and I thought you were somewhat intelligent.

MugMugs

Reg'stoy wrote: »

So wanting to buy them pints, give them medals plus your nudge nudge, wink wink comment about a Judge giving them a light sentence because he too dislikes speed vans, is not condoning what they did, and I thought you were somewhat intelligent.

Eh, what? I wouldn't condone murder, nor have I be it attempted or not.....

It was a tongue in cheek comment with respect to the sentence and the apparent views of the judge..... Glad to see you can judge an IQ based solely on that. Well done

Reg'stoy

OSI wrote: »

Whatever about setting fire to a speed camera, setting for to a vehicle with a man inside it is utterly disgusting regardless of his occupation. And I'm quite shocked to see people condoning their behaviour.

MugMugs wrote: »

I can't see where this has been condoned on this thread......

If you can't see, how wanting to buy them pints or give them medals is not tacitly condoning what they did; and I include tongue in cheek, well then I think I was correct.

Myrddin

It should be at least attempted murder, absolutely scandalous decision by the judge. The Judges, are the single biggest problem this country has in terms of law/crime, a lot of their decisions are farcical. There's a man in a cell today who was jailed for importing tomatoes illegally, but these lads walk away? Inconsistency of the highest order

FutureGuy

Disgraceful sentencing yet again. If you walk away free for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old and doing the same to your nieces, these men should at least been given a fruit basket and 2 weeks in The Canaries.

deandean

I wonder if the judge has clocked up 6 points from speed vans. Might explain the leniant sentence.

Davyhal

Surely it doesn't matter what the vehicle was? So what if it was a speed camera van? There was a person inside... Whole country up in arms the time that the car was set on fire with the 2 young children inside it a few years ago, this is very much along the same lines! In fact, the time of the 2 young children, the vandal said he did not know that the vehicle was occupied at the time, and he was jailed (and then earlier this year shot dead in connection with another violent crime)... In this case, the 2 must have been aware that the vehicle was occupied... It's an absolute farce!

gozunda

"As sure thems is lovely lads, I know the mammy, respectable families, play with the local team and are lovely to their grannies..."

This is the normal defence used in modern Ireland for scumbags. And this is the problem - ' ah sure their grand - they didn't mean it'

Personally I would like to see the reintroduction of prison sentences with hard labour especially for such 'nice young lads'
And as for the rest of the law breaking, bribe taking, bullying and embezzling gobsheens out there I would gladly see the administration of the same solution.

galwaytt

....well, welcome to the Banana GARLIC Republic.

A country where French presidents pat you on the head, where German chancellors kiss you one minute and tell you to fupp off the next, where sex crimes are measured in Euro's, and Garlic trumps real crime.

Yep, sure we'll be grand.

corktina

Pdfile wrote: »

well before everyone jumps in saying how terrible these men are, how stupid to burn the van out etc... calm your horses, we all hate these as much as we hate the vans and operation itself. I think we should all focus our efforts into getting a jcb wth 2 large boulders.

put one either end of a speed van kissing its bumpers. u mad camera man ?

I don't hate them at all. I shall curse if one catches me, but I think they are about 1% of the job that needs doing to make our roads safer, a tiny step in the right direction

pom pom snaz peeler

them vans a re a menace to society..... and they should be left unmanned incase the accidentally go on fire!

Myrddin

corktina wrote: »

I don't hate them at all. I shall curse if one catches me, but I think they are about 1% of the job that needs doing to make our roads safer, a tiny step in the right direction

I'll agree with that when I seen them on country roads at 2am. Parking up in 60kmph zones to milk people doing 65/70 though? That isn't saving lives at all

discombobulate

..

sheesh

I wonder if the sentence would have been different if it was a Garda in the van it seems very lenient.

if they are on a €100 bond to keep the peace they cannot possibly have alot of money so probably not paying for the damage

MugMugs

discombobulate wrote: »

Heres the beasts the first guy drives:

Beast 1

Beast 2

Linking their book faces is a bit personal, isn't it?

drunkmonkey

Jees you'd sware by some of the comments here the guys intended to cook the guy like the Christmas turkey. The van had plenty of doors which the driver managed to use successfully.
I like the boulder idea.

discombobulate

MugMugs wrote: »

Linking their book faces is a bit personal, isn't it?

Not as personal as nearly killing someone!

Guy:Incognito

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Jees you'd sware by some of the comments here the guys intended to cook the guy like the Christmas turkey. The van had plenty of doors which the driver managed to use successfully.
I like the boulder idea.

Houses have plenty of doors and windows, is petrol bombing someone's house cos you don't like their job ok?

EDIT. OSI got there first

MuppetCheck

Two very lucky boyos.

Guy:Incognito

galwaytt wrote: »

....well, welcome to the Banana GARLIC Republic.

A country where French presidents pat you on the head, where German chancellors kiss you one minute and tell you to fupp off the next, where sex crimes are measured in Euro's, and Garlic trumps real crime.

Yep, sure we'll be grand.

Is this ****e about the guy locked up for tax evasion the go to thing now every time someone gets a lenient sentence?

You forgot to have a bit of a rant about bankers. Or are they old news now?

EnterNow wrote: »

I'll agree with that when I seen them on country roads at 2am. Parking up in 60kmph zones to milk people doing 65/70 though? That isn't saving lives at all

Who are they milking? Is there something about 60km zones that people have to go faster in them? Sure everyone's a great driver, let them police themselves.

Cabaal

Something seriously wrong with some people in this thread,

Yes you might hate the vans and all but but these two idiots could have killed somebody, thats not something to laugh or joke about. People might say oh well the van has plenty of windows or doors byt you are assuming that smoke doesn't kill the guy first or somehow he doesn't get trapped.

If you disagree with Gardai checkpoints does that mean its ok for you to burn out a Gardai car with a Gardai in it?

Cabaal

EnterNow wrote: »

Parking up in 60kmph zones to milk people doing 65/70 though? That isn't saving lives at all

err, yes it is.

Near where I live there's a 100km 10mile stretch of road, with the exception of 3km of it which it drops to 60km.

The 60km zone is slower because of some very dangerous turns, prior to the speed van setting up shop on the turns there was atleast 2-3 crashes a week.

Most of these crashes meant a car ended up in a ditch, a truck shed its load and people got injured etc.

Since the van setup shop there has been none as people have been forced to slow down on a road that just isn't suitable for anything over 60km/hour.

The drop in speed is reasonable and the van had to be put there because f*ckwits just didn't have enough cop on to drive at a safe speed for the conditions.

djimi

What were they tried for exactly? Criminal damage by the sounds of it? How on earth were they not tried for attempted murder...?

Idbatterim

this beggars belief, these sub human scum, got away without a jail sentence?! they should be made pay back every bloody cent of the damage, legal costs etc. take it out of their dole and if shock horror, these wasters are in fact working, take it out of that!

Myrddin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Jees you'd sware by some of the comments here the guys intended to cook the guy like the Christmas turkey. The van had plenty of doors which the driver managed to use successfully.
I like the boulder idea.

What if the driver hadn't of noticed it, & part of the wiring loom melted together causing a short circuit locking the doors & windows...you won't last very long in a smoke filled vehicle. It was reckless endangerment at the very least, ideally it should be attempted murder. There has to be consequences for actions

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is this ****e about the guy locked up for tax evasion the go to thing now every time someone gets a lenient sentence?

I think its a perfectly valid comparison. Old news doesn't make it any less relevant.

Cabaal wrote: »

err, yes it is.

Near where I live there's a 100km 10mile stretch of road, with the exception of 3km of it which it drops to 60km.

The 60km zone is slower because of some very dangerous turns, prior to the speed van setting up shop on the turns there was atleast 2-3 crashes a week.

Most of these crashes meant a car ended up in a ditch, a truck shed its load and people got injured etc.

Since the van setup shop there has been none as people have been forced to slow down on a road that just isn't suitable for anything over 60km/hour.

The drop in speed is reasonable and the van had to be put there because f*ckwits just didn't have enough cop on to drive at a safe speed for the conditions.

Ok there will always be exceptions like that, granted. But for the most part, the vans are parked up nowhere near black spots & instead are poised to make money. They're a business after all.

Idbatterim

can the verdict be appealed?!

Guy:Incognito

EnterNow wrote: »

I think its a perfectly valid comparison. Old news doesn't make it any less relevant.
.

Maybe they should have had these two up for tax evasion so :rolleyes:

That judge did their job properly. Other aren't. Like this case. Doesn't make that guy any less guilty.

EnterNow wrote: »

Ok there will always be exceptions like that, granted. But for the most part, the vans are parked up nowhere near black spots & instead are poised to make money. They're a business after all.

There's a very simple way to not get "milked" for any money..........

guttenberg

Idbatterim wrote: »

this beggars belief, these sub human scum, got away without a jail sentence?! they should be made pay back every bloody cent of the damage, legal costs etc. take it out of their dole and if shock horror, these wasters are in fact working, take it out of that!

Would you also make them liable for the loss of earnings that the van would have raised if it still out catching speeders?

Myrddin

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

That judge did their job properly. Other aren't. Like this case. Doesn't make that guy any less guilty.

Very true, thats the whole point. It seems the scummier & toe raggier you are, you get a much more likely lenient sentence than the average Joe will.

There's a very simple way to not get "milked" for any money..........

Again very true, & I can gladly say in all my years of driving I've never recieved a single fine or penalty point. Though it doesn't stop me noticing how 'strategically' placed a lot of these vans seem to be.

Ellis Dee

Anyone who sets fire to a building or vehicle with people inside it is knowingly playing with others' lives and deserves a substantial sentence, not just a ridiculous slap on the wrist.:(:( I don't like traffic wardens, but always resist the urge to head butt one when I see him.

I sincerely hope the DPP appeals against this excessively lenient sentence.:cool:

Anything else only makes a mockery of laws that, ultimately, are there to protect all of us. Six years for ripping off the revenue in the garlic/apples scam, zero jail time for a potentially deadly act of arson. No wonder this country is so screwed up!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

EnterNow wrote: »

. It seems the scummier & toe raggier you are, you get a much more likely lenient sentence than the average Joe will.

.

It might look like that from certain angles but the truth is there are people in all walks of life getting away easy. There's as many threads on boards complaining about people "buying" their way out of trouble or people at the top with mates getting them off as there are scumbags racking up hundreds of convictions.

Complaining about the times the judges actually do their job isn't the way forward, focussing on the ones that are letting people off is.

gerire

Idbatterim wrote: »

can the verdict be appealed?!

What verdict do you want appealed?

They were found guilty of Criminal Damage by fire, and sentenced to 7 years. The judge in his infinite wisdom then suspended the sentence. Their criminal record now shows a 7 year sentence and a conviction, along with whatever else may be on it.


I think its a shocking decision and cannot understand how the DPP did not direct to charge with attempted murder too

Idbatterim

Would you also make them liable for the loss of earnings that the van would have raised if it still out catching speeders?

good suggestion, i overlooked that one!

Guy:Incognito

gerire wrote: »

What verdict do you want appealed?

The suspended part maybe? Is that within the remit of the DPP or once the sentence (7 years) is handed down is that deemed harsh enough whether its served or sentenced.

Lets be honest though, a 7 year sentence that you don't spend any of in jail is hardly a sentence. They'll probably have forgotten when its up by the time the letter drops through their door informing them that it is.

corktina

but it is still a sentence and will limit their travel plans and job prospects for the rest of their lives

Guy:Incognito

corktina wrote: »

but it is still a sentence and will limit their travel plans and job prospects for the rest of their lives

I'd hazard a guess they see it as a victory though. There's probably a party in their local pub tonight and all I'd imagine. :rolleyes:

They should have seen the inside of a cell. Maybe suspend 3 1/2 -4 years of it at most.

aman23

Cienciano wrote: »

A fine? They should have been given medals

+1:P

corktina

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess they see it as a victory though. There's probably a party in their local pub tonight and all I'd imagine. :rolleyes:

They should have seen the inside of a cell. Maybe suspend 3 1/2 -4 years of it at most.

it does send out the wrong message I agree.

Myrddin

Anyone who thinks people like this give the slightest fukc about 'travel plans' or 'job prospects' need to get a serious grip on reality. In the real world, this will be seen as a victory by those lads.

The judge's decision to suspend the sentence needs to be seriously & looked at...its farcical

clappyhappy

I know its the one sentence that most crimes are judged against, but how can destroying private property and attempted murder or assault on the person operating the vehicle be only given a suspended sentence and a hundred euro fine, and a guy who labels garlic as apples gets 6 years. The justice system in this country is seriously fůcked up.

Sunnyisland

slappy happy wrote: »

I know its the one sentence that most crimes are judged against, but how can destroying private property and attempted murder or assault on the person operating the vehicle be only given a suspended sentence and a hundred euro fine, and a guy who labels garlic as apples gets 6 years. The justice system in this country is seriously fůcked up.

He wasn't jailed for wrongly labelling apples as been suggested he was jailed for six years over a €1.6m garlic import scam.


http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=garlicman%20gets%20six%20years&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja ved=0QF jAB url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fnational-news%2Fcourts%2Fman-jailed-for-six-years-over-16m-garlic-tax-scam-3045619.html&ei=MOSGUKSWLdGBhQePv4HACA&usg=AFQjCNHIPLLp60euMtT3UOb0OCGIZN_wpQ

Them lads should have been given a custodial sentence.

galwaytt

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is this ****e about the guy locked up for tax evasion the go to thing now every time someone gets a lenient sentence?

You forgot to have a bit of a rant about bankers. Or are they old news now?




Who are they milking? Is there something about 60km zones that people have to go faster in them? Sure everyone's a great driver, let them police themselves.

It's not ****e. It's a court-recorded public record. Handed down by peers of the case I mention: that is, the same judiciary. If that doesn't lie easy with you, well, tough. Tough ****e, even......