What a sadistic bastar*

MagicSean · 09-11-2012 2:18pm

Grayson wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread. But does anyone know what the maximum sentancing for this is?

He got 5 and have 2 1/2 removed for pleading guilty. which left 2 1/2 years.

I have no problem with a judge lessening a sentance because someone pleaded guilty. It means the victim doesn't have to go through the ordeal of a trial with cross examination etc... It also means cases are processed quickly.
But that does mean he only got 2 1/2 years which seems quite small. I was wondering if anyone know what the maximum sentancing is assaulyt.

The maximum is 5 years

Grayson · 09-11-2012 2:21pm

Leftist wrote: »

Odd that you would need to jump to the defence of men. Very telling imo.

I think it's very telling that you threw out a "I'm not saying anything but.. " kind of statement. If you're going to make thinly veiled accusations against someone just say it. Don't beat around the bush with snide remarks.

Grayson · 09-11-2012 2:23pm

MagicSean wrote: »

The maximum is 5 years

Cheers. In that case, the guy was sentanced fairly according to the law. Personally I might have only suspended 18-24 months. But all in all, it seems fair according to the law.

old hippy · 09-11-2012 2:26pm

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Judges here love suspending sentences, I know it's probably to do with over crowding etc but in cases like this, where a foreign national commits serious assault they should be deported, simple as. If only we could deport some Irish scum as well.

We are too soft with foreign criminals.

An horrific crime and it does deserve a longer sentence but sadly predictable to see the thread degenerate into bringing someone's nationality into it. Not to mention the calls for the perp to be raped in prison.

The blood lust on boards never ceases to amaze me.

Odysseus · 09-11-2012 2:27pm

Grayson wrote: »

Cheers. In that case, the guy was sentanced fairly according to the law. Personally I might have only suspended 18-24 months. But all in all, it seems fair according to the law.

People often are not happy with what the law allows and think that the sentense should match their outrage.

enda1 · 09-11-2012 2:34pm

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Every time you read some judgement from these useless kunts in our judiciary, you always read something like this....

Why would the useless fúcker suspend part of the sentence on this animal? If you ask me, the only thing that should have been 'suspended' was the bástards life.

Gaols are full.

Reloc8 · 09-11-2012 2:35pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Actually he didn't because he suspended half of it without what many people would consider good reason, after the guilty plea was only entered at the last minute when it became clear that the victim was determined to proceed, and in and of itself hardly deserves a sentence suspension of 50%.

Mmm. See, the Judge heard all of the evidence while you read a newspaper report. So Ima say your opinion is relatively uninformed.

WileyCoyote wrote: »

One also has to question why he was not charged with more serious crimes since the evidence as reported would indicate false imprisonment as well.

Aha - see that's nothing to do with the Judge. The Office of the DPP decides what charges are brought and what charges to proceed with ultimately.

I'll take the view that the DPP was fully aware of all relevant matters affecting this case and took the decision to proceed with S. 3 Assault charges on an informed basis.

Myrddin · 09-11-2012 2:40pm

Reloc8 wrote: »

I'll take the view that the DPP was fully aware of all relevant matters affecting this case and took the decision to proceed with S. 3 Assault charges on an informed basis.

You agree that a fractured eye socket is a section 3??

Capt'n Midnight · 09-11-2012 2:44pm

Odysseus wrote: »

Yes he was in custody for about a year prior to the court date, so he has a year and a half to serve, that is without remission; which I think is still a thrid off provided he behaves himself whilst locked up.

So he could be out in less than a year if he keeps out of trouble ?

Are suspended sentences here applied universally if some is caught again ?
Asking because I can't remember hearing of a news report where anyone got extra jail time because of it.

Also what's the story on being held in custody ?
Since the person may well prove to be innocent are they treated better than a prisoner ? Would there be any redress for an innocent person locked up for such a long time ?

09-11-2012 2:49pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Are suspended sentences here applied universally if some is caught again ?
Asking because I can't remember hearing of a news report where anyone got extra jail time because of it.

The suspended parts of sentences are a joke. They're not necessarily automatically activated. Sometimes they're only activated if the next crime is as serious as the first one and they often run concurrently with the next sentence. It's not like parole where breaking the conditions mean a return to prison, they have to be convicted again.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-11-2012 2:50pm

Reloc8 wrote: »

It may have been said but is worth repeating. The charge of which he has been convicted carries a maximum sentence of 5 years (s. 3 Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997).

Topper Harley wrote: »

The judge can't impose a sentence longer than the maximum allowed by the relevant legislation. Then there has to be some reduction in the sentence for a guilty plea, otherwise there is no incentive for him or future scumbags to admit guilt.

He pleaded guilty to assaulting the woman causing her harm on three occasions at the woman's home in Tirellan Heights, Headford Road, Galway on August 6, November 20, and December 7 last year.

There is the old saying "might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb"

If you get the same for one assault as you do for a series of them what's going to make you think about slowing down ?

Judges have the option of not issuing concurrent sentences don't they ?

Did anyone check to see if he had a criminal record abroad prior to sentencing ?

PizzamanIRL · 09-11-2012 2:50pm

johnwest288 wrote: »

ah heyorrrrrrrrr leave it bleedin out Judge ...leave it owww

'Oh look someone got brutally assaulted, but who cares, lets take this opportunity to be a thanks whore'

09-11-2012 2:52pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Judges have the option of not issuing concurrent sentences don't they ?

Yes but it'll be appealed and the next judge will say that in comparison with past cases it's too harsh. The drift in sentencing caused by precedence only ever goes one way for some reason.:rolleyes:

09-11-2012 2:52pm

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

'Oh look someone got brutally assaulted, but who cares, lets take this opportunity to be a thanks whore'

Look at you there, making a difference.

Odysseus · 09-11-2012 2:54pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So he could be out in less than a year if he keeps out of trouble ?

Are suspended sentences here applied universally if some is caught again ?
Asking because I can't remember hearing of a news report where anyone got extra jail time because of it.

Also what's the story on being held in custody ?
Since the person may well prove to be innocent are they treated better than a prisoner ? Would there be any redress for an innocent person locked up for such a long time ?

Well they get more access to visits than somebody who is convicted, wear their own clothes, I can't think of much more off the top of my head.

I'm not sure about the redress aspect, most of the guys I know who end up in custody end up convicted. However, with serious cases it is not uncommon to spend a year or so in custody awaiting trial.

Local-womanizer · 09-11-2012 2:55pm

old hippy wrote: »

An horrific crime and it does deserve a longer sentence but sadly predictable to see the thread degenerate into bringing someone's nationality into it. Not to mention the calls for the perp to be raped in prison.

The blood lust on boards never ceases to amaze me.

I don't know if this is aimed at me, if its not I'm genuinely sorry, but I don't think he should be raped, hanged or tortured.

I brought this guys nationality into this in a mannerly and non xenophobic way, as if you are a foreign national convicted of a rather serious and violent crime then I believe you have had your chance in this country and should be deported.

I would recommend the same for Irish nationals but who would take them!

mel1 · 09-11-2012 2:56pm

MagicSean wrote: »

The maximum is 5 years

And that is what i ment about mornic sentences! Plead guilty or not his sentence should have been way more severe. IMO

Im aware a judge cannot change the law, but seriously 2and 1/2 flippen year for that kind of behaviour is absoutly disgusting.

Wonder how long it will be before this sick f**k does more damage after he is released, and next girl may not be so lucky if you could call her that.

HeyThereDeliah · 09-11-2012 2:58pm

Local-womanizer wrote: »

I would recommend the same for Irish nationals but who would take them!

You mean if Irish nationals commit crime in other countries they should be deported back here? We would have no choice but take them back.

mel1 · 09-11-2012 2:59pm

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You mean if Irish nationals commit crime in other countries they should be deported back here? We would have no choice but take them back.

Dont think thats what he ment!;)

Topper Harley · 09-11-2012 2:59pm

EnterNow wrote: »

You agree that a fractured eye socket is a section 3??

I'd agree that the Gardaí and the DPP are the best ones to make that decision. And I'm confidant they made that decision based on ensuring a conviction and a maximum sentence.

Local-womanizer · 09-11-2012 3:00pm

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

You mean if Irish nationals commit crime in other countries they should be deported back here? We would have no choice but take them back.

No, deport them from here, to Siberia or something, that's just me though, I'm old fashioned like that!

HeyThereDeliah · 09-11-2012 3:04pm

Local-womanizer wrote: »

No, deport them from here, to Siberia or something, that's just me though, I'm old fashioned like that!

Where do the Irish law breakers go? Do you think every country should deport every person who commits a crime back to their birth country?

Myrddin · 09-11-2012 3:05pm

Topper Harley wrote: »

I'd agree that the Gardaí and the DPP are the best ones to make that decision. And I'm confidant they made that decision based on ensuring a conviction and a maximum sentence.

Oh I agree, my point is from the descriptions of the assaults we've heard so far, I think it could warrant being a Section 4 {A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence} which would also untie the Judges in hands in applying a more severe sentence when he hears the full facts { A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for life or to both.}

Local-womanizer · 09-11-2012 3:06pm

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Where do the Irish law breakers go? Do you think every country should deport every person who commits a crime back to their birth country?

Send everyone to Siberia, grit the roads or something!

The bit about deporting our own criminals was a joke, of course it will never happen.

Topper Harley · 09-11-2012 3:08pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There is the old saying "might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb"

If you get the same for one assault as you do for a series of them what's going to make you think about slowing down ?

Judges have the option of not issuing concurrent sentences don't they ?

Did anyone check to see if he had a criminal record abroad prior to sentencing ?

Good point. But it appears he was only tried for that last assault. So he can't be convicted and sentenced for other assaults if they're not being tried. Don't understand why though. Maybe the DPP thought the sentences would be concurrent so just went after the main charge to speed up the process.

Reloc8 · 09-11-2012 3:09pm

EnterNow wrote: »

You agree that a fractured eye socket is a section 3??

Yes, by reference to the definition of assault causing serious harm (particularly 'serious harm') set out in Section 4 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, quoted in a previous post of mine, highlighting also the need for an offence which bridges the gap beween a S. 3 and a S. 4, or different criteria for 'serious harm'.

MagicSean · 09-11-2012 3:14pm

EnterNow wrote: »

Oh I agree, my point is from the descriptions of the assaults we've heard so far, I think it could warrant being a Section 4 {A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence} which would also untie the Judges in hands in applying a more severe sentence when he hears the full facts { A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for life or to both.}

“serious harm” means injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substantial loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organ;

I dont think her injuries fall under that category

Reloc8 · 09-11-2012 3:16pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There is the old saying "might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb"

If you get the same for one assault as you do for a series of them what's going to make you think about slowing down ?

Judges have the option of not issuing concurrent sentences don't they ?

Did anyone check to see if he had a criminal record abroad prior to sentencing ?

If this guy was convicted of those three assaults om separate dates as separate convictions there would have been the option of consecutive sentences.

It seems to me that he was not however, based only on what I have read in the media, although it was clear that evidence would be given of them.

The DPP would have been entitled to check his record abroad, and would certainly have done so.

Topper Harley · 09-11-2012 3:18pm

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

'Oh look someone got brutally assaulted, but who cares, lets take this opportunity to be a thanks whore'

I don't understand why people get so outraged at little facetious comments ... in AH.

Topper Harley · 09-11-2012 3:19pm

EnterNow wrote: »

Oh I agree, my point is from the descriptions of the assaults we've heard so far, I think it could warrant being a Section 4 {A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence} which would also untie the Judges in hands in applying a more severe sentence when he hears the full facts { A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for life or to both.}

I suppose the DPP just went the route he/she felt was best to get a conviction.

What a sadistic bastar*

Comments