Katie French

HappyBalance

Can anybody explain why it has taken 5 years to charge these people? Surely that is too long of a gap from offence taken place?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/katy-french-pals-admit-coke-charge-over-weekend-she-died-3292232.html

happyhappy

HappyBalance wrote: »

Can anybody explain why it has taken 5 years to charge these people? Surely that is too long of a gap from offence taken place?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/katy-french-pals-admit-coke-charge-over-weekend-she-died-3292232.html

They were charged 2 or 3 years ago, they pleaded guilty and were convicted today. I think you are confusing the 2.

HappyBalance

happyhappy wrote: »

They were charged 2 or 3 years ago, they pleaded guilty and were convicted today. I think you are confusing the 2.

Even 2 to 3 years is too long. I thought they had to be charged within 6 months?

happyhappy

HappyBalance wrote: »

Even 2 to 3 years is too long. I thought they had to be charged within 6 months?

No, that's for minor summary offences only, for indictable offences there is no statute of limitations, although undue delay can be argued by the defence if they think the prosecution was too slow - justice delayed.... Etc.


I don't see any issue here - sure both defendants pleaded guilty!

ResearchWill

HappyBalance wrote: »

Even 2 to 3 years is too long. I thought they had to be charged within 6 months?

There is no statutory time limt for serious offences (indictment), in relation to a charge brought as a minor offence (summary) there is a statutory time limt to seek a summons of six months under the petty sessions Ireland act 1851, in a lot of modern legislation this Act does not apply and a two year limit is substituted example is the recent Household Charge Act.

im invisible

can anyone explain why they were charged at all??

happyhappy

im invisible wrote: »

can anyone explain why they were charged at all??

Because there was evidence that they had committed criminal offences and the dpp directed the charges.

HappyBalance

ResearchWill wrote: »

There is no statutory time limt for serious offences (indictment), in relation to a charge brought as a minor offence (summary) there is a statutory time limt to seek a summons of six months under the petty sessions Ireland act 1851, in a lot of modern legislation this Act does not apply and a two year limit is substituted example is the recent Household Charge Act.

So, are you saying that 2 years has replaced 6 months in relation to minor offences? Sorry, im a bit confused as to how a case like this has taken so long to get through the courts.

Marsden

im invisible wrote: »

can anyone explain why they were charged at all??

Because Katy French was semi famous. If it was a normy the guards wouldn't take a second look at it.

tayto lover

im invisible wrote: »

can anyone explain why they were charged at all??

It's in the article -

The pair admitted that between 6pm on Saturday December ,1 2007, and 10am the following day they, at an unknown location, procured Russell Memery to possess cocaine for the purpose of sale or supply.

Judge Leonie Reynolds was told a second charge would not be pursued against Ducie and Corcoran - that they intentionally or recklessly engaged in conduct related to the supply of cocaine to Ms French and failed to get medical assistance in a timely fashion, which created a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another.

spireland32

im invisible wrote: »

can anyone explain why they were charged at all??

Exactly. .. they didn't shove the coke up her nose. If this was a 24 yrs old from inner city dublin living in corpo flat no investigation into who supplied the drugs would have taken place. Its only because she was "famous"

happyhappy

spireland32 wrote: »

Exactly. .. they didn't shove the coke up her nose. If this was a 24 yrs old from inner city dublin living in corpo flat no investigation into who supplied the drugs would have taken place. Its only because she was "famous"

There's no doubt that this is exactly it!