Two jailed over 'full scale riot' in court

gahsux

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1108/two-jailed-over-full-scale-riot-in-court.html

Were they threatening the Jury?

Skyflyer1234

They more than likely were, sounds like a bunch of more scum who will once they get out do it again......didnt really catch what sentences they got anyone able to clarify?

MagicSean

Each rapists family was blaming the other rapist and accusing the jury of getting it wrong. Not sure how a 14 year old can be considered a ring leader in a bunch of adults.

B.A._Baracus

100 euro says they were a bunch of skanger scum.

davet82

gahsux wrote: »

Were they threatening the Jury?

yes (abusive in a threatening manor is what i gather), so much so that some jurors, including grown men, were weeping

nasty stuff, make ye think twice about doing your civic duty!

Larbre34

If these type of people will not be controlled in a court building full of guards what hope for those who suffer violence and intimidation from the likes of these on a daily basis.

There is an underclass of people who live parallel to the majority of us, who take what they need, violate who they like and fear no justice, punishment or reprisal. The hands off softly softly approach to policing, enforcement and sentencing has created this monster and it will be a huge issue for the next few years as offenders become more uninhibited and victims are injured or killed just for being in the way of some of these types getting what they want.

Justice Carney said he was being lenient in sentencing the woman and the girl who caused the disturbance in the court, but if you want to make a point, why be lenient, make it a punishment that will be a real slap in the face.

gahsux

Larbre34 wrote: »

If these type of people will not be controlled in a court building full of guards what hope for those who suffer violence and intimidation from the likes of these on a daily basis.

There is an underclass of people who live parallel to the majority of us, who take what they need, violate who they like and fear no justice, punishment or reprisal.

I Agree. Many of these people have never had their behavior corrected throughout their whole lives and when they finally reach an impasse, they react with outrage. Not many people want to advocate tougher punishment for these low-level, physical types of crime (not the rape crime, just anti-social stuff) it seems everyone in power wants to be on the side of the high-moral-ground and not being branded as draconian.

kraggy

Larbre34 wrote: »

If these type of people will not be controlled in a court building full of guards what hope for those who suffer violence and intimidation from the likes of these on a daily basis.

There is an underclass of people who live parallel to the majority of us, who take what they need, violate who they like and fear no justice, punishment or reprisal. The hands off softly softly approach to policing, enforcement and sentencing has created this monster and it will be a huge issue for the next few years as offenders become more uninhibited and victims are injured or killed just for being in the way of some of these types getting what they want.

Justice Carney said he was being lenient in sentencing the woman and the girl who caused the disturbance in the court, but if you want to make a point, why be lenient, make it a punishment that will be a real slap in the face.

Hmm, the infamous Justice Paul Carney gave them a lenient sentence you say?

Why, I'm not surprised.

Interesting collection of his "sentences" here:

http://unitedirelander.blogspot.kr/2007/03/justice-carney-must-be-removed.html

He is not fit to hold the position of judge. Anyone who reads the newspaper should be aware of that.

Show Time

Hey now boss it's their culture and don't be forgetting that now.

Death and Taxes

kraggy wrote: »

Hmm, the infamous Justice Paul Carney gave them a lenient sentence you say?

Why, I'm not surprised.

Interesting collection of his "sentences" here:

http://unitedirelander.blogspot.kr/2007/03/justice-carney-must-be-removed.html

He is not fit to hold the position of judge. Anyone who reads the newspaper should be aware of that.

Wow a link thats 5 years out of date!!!!
Judge Carney has consistantly complained that he is restrained from issuing harseher sentences because of the rulings of the Court of Criminal Appeal!

Death and Taxes

Show Time wrote: »

Hey now boss it's their culture and don't be forgetting that now.

Kristopherus

kraggy wrote: »

Hmm, the infamous Justice Paul Carney gave them a lenient sentence you say?

Why, I'm not surprised.

Interesting collection of his "sentences" here:

http://unitedirelander.blogspot.kr/2007/03/justice-carney-must-be-removed.html

He is not fit to hold the position of judge. Anyone who reads the newspaper should be aware of that.

Rubbish. He has stated time and again that if he had his way he would give harsher sentences, but he is constrained by higher court decisions. He cannot be blamed for this attitude. If he gave a harsh sentence, it would be appealed successfully at considerable to us taxpayers.

Conall Cernach

RTE Report wrote:

They pointed at the jury and shouted that the acquitted man was "the one that did everything", saying: "He's a pervert and a rapist. He beat her. He killed her".

Surely that's defamation/slander. No one was killed in this case from what I can gather.

davet82

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Surely that's defamation/slander. No one was killed in this case from what I can gather.

probably getting mixed up in another rape they done... :rolleyes:

scumbags

kraggy

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Wow a link thats 5 years out of date!!!!
Judge Carney has consistantly complained that he is restrained from issuing harseher sentences because of the rulings of the Court of Criminal Appeal!

Kristopherus wrote: »

Rubbish. He has stated time and again that if he had his way he woudd give harsher sentences, but he is constrained by higher court decisions. He cannot be blamed for this attitude. If he gave a harsh sentence, it would be appealed successfully at considerable to us taxpayers.

A suspended sentence for rape and the same for sexual assault are not examples of his hands being tied. In both scenarios, he can give actual time and not suspend them. Nowhere does the law say that you can only give a suspended sentence for rape and/or sexual assault.

He didn't have to suspend them. Read up on the history of his sentencing, besides the link given, before you denounce my post as rubbish.

Also, the age of the link provided in this case has no relevance. The link is merely a collection of examples of his sentencing.

Regardless, here's an example from this year: he could have given 7 years but the guy got 4, with 2 suspended because the scumbag (who had 40 previous convictions) paid a measley "compensation".

He'll only serve about 18 months.

He could have been given 7 years!

Chucky the tree

kraggy wrote: »

Hmm, the infamous Justice Paul Carney gave them a lenient sentence you say?

Why, I'm not surprised.

Interesting collection of his "sentences" here:

http://unitedirelander.blogspot.kr/2007/03/justice-carney-must-be-removed.html

He is not fit to hold the position of judge. Anyone who reads the newspaper should be aware of that.

haha, what a terrible blog post. His first example even has this in it

Mr Justice Paul Carney said the crime warranted at least 10 years but by law he could only impose five. And, even then, he had to take time off to recognise Hickey's guilty plea.

The Judge can't change laws to suit him.

kraggy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

haha, what a terrible blog post. His first example even has this in it




The Judge can't change laws to suit him.

No, but he doesn't have to suspend sentences when a crime as heinous as rape has been committed or if the defendant has previous convictions.

The blog is, well, a blog. Google the actual cases.

A suspended sentence for rape or giving 2 years (again because of suspending the rest of the sentence) for killing a baby and stabbing the baby's mother is just unacceptable.

Sponge Bob

Those 2 scumbags have been on bail for 3 years. How many crimes have each of them commited since???

AEDIC

'The men, who cannot be named for legal reasons,'

What legal reason would that be?? They were both of age when they committed the crime.... seems a bit odd unless they are also on remand for another crime of the same type.

Sunnyisland

AEDIC wrote: »

'The men, who cannot be named for legal reasons,'

What legal reason would that be?? They were both of age when they committed the crime.... seems a bit odd unless they are also on remand for another crime of the same type.

The legal reason can also be because the Victim doesn't want them named as it might identify herself.

My name is URL

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

100 euro says they were a bunch of skanger scum.

Well they're hardly fine upstanding members of society!

Easiest €100 you'll ever make

AEDIC

realies wrote: »

The legal reason can also be because the Victim doesn't want them named as it might identify herself.

Not sure how....if they were related I guess... but even then it wouldn't identify her by them being named unless it said in the reports that they assaulted their sister/aunt/cousin etc..

Death and Taxes

kraggy wrote: »

A suspended sentence for rape and the same for sexual assault are not examples of his hands being tied. In both scenarios, he can give actual time and not suspend them. Nowhere does the law say that you can only give a suspended sentence for rape and/or sexual assault.

He didn't have to suspend them. Read up on the history of his sentencing, besides the link given, before you denounce my post as rubbish.

Also, the age of the link provided in this case has no relevance. The link is merely a collection of examples of his sentencing.

Regardless, here's an example from this year: he could have given 7 years but the guy got 4, with 2 suspended because the scumbag (who had 40 previous convictions) paid a measley "compensation".

He'll only serve about 18 months.

He could have been given 7 years!

You are familiar with the rulings of the CCA?
No, obviously you are not!
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0702/1224319184198.html

Pappa Charlie

Its terrible because it happened in front of the judge! Welcome to the real world Judge where you can see the impact of voilence, sadly most Judges have lost sight of this and their sentences reflect that!

conorhal

These people have a moral compass so broken that they don’t even seem to know when to hang their heads in shame.
If a son of mine was just convicted of abduction, rape and car theft I'd be far too ashamed and depressed to start a riot in a courtroom while bleating about 'injustice', I doubt I could even face turning up at court in the first place.

the_syco

Skyflyer1234 wrote: »

They more than likely were, sounds like a bunch of more scum who will once they get out do it again......didnt really catch what sentences they got anyone able to clarify?

he sentenced the 14-year-old sister of one accused to four days imprisonment and the 58-year-old mother of the other accused to seven days imprisonment.

One bit has me confused;

The men, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

What legal reasons? They're 19 and 21.

AEDIC

the_syco wrote: »

One bit has me confused;

What legal reasons? They're 19 and 21.

I think I am answering my own question here too....but I think the penny has just dropped.

The legal reason might be that their sister is only 14, and by naming them, you are also naming her...which I am guessing is the 'legal reason' and not allowed....which is actually quite clever... if you credit them with the brains to think of it beforehand.

notnumber

Pity this ain't on video..cams in courthouses would be awesome.

kraggy

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You are familiar with the rulings of the CCA?
No, obviously you are not!
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0702/1224319184198.html

I'm fully aware of the CCA. Why do you think I'm not?

The link that you've posted demonstrates an example where Carney actually gave a sentence of substance. In that particular case he gave 8 years. '

I'm talking about cases where he gives suspended sentences whereby the guilty partner serves no time whatsoever or a very short time such as 2 years for serious crimes.

In such cases, Carney's citing of the CCA being the reason for his lenient sentences is wholly irrelevant, thus making your point irrelevant.

previous user

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

100 euro says they were a bunch of skanger scum.

Ugh, they should be neutered every one of them, animal scum.
I'm so sick of these "people".