20 years for manslaughter

Sunnyisland

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0731/465672-melanie-mccarthy-mcnamara/


A 24-year-old man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for his role in the killing of a 16-year-old girl.
Melanie McCarthy-McNamara was shot dead as she sat in a car in Tallaght on 8 February, 2012.
Keith Hall, 24, of Kilmartin Drive in Tallaght had pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter...

The judge said the use of drink, drugs or a dysfunctional background provided little or no defence or mitigation and he refused to suspend any portion of the 20-year sentence.
The victim's family said afterwards they were delighted with the sentence.


Its about time the judiciary stood up and be heard and imo this sentence is shouting out to be heard and as a warning to others. well done Judge.

YFlyer

You wouldn't get that for murder.

homerjay2005

hopefully this is the start of proper justice in this country where people get the sentences they deserve.

Gatling

Still don't get the actual charge he knowingly fired a loaded gun into a car with people sitting in it should have been charged with murder

endacl

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

Happy to see the heavy sentence, but I don't get the 'manslaughter' bit. He intended to kill somebody, and he did kill somebody. It was murder.

EB_2013

Good to see the heavy sentence handed down in this case as its usually the lenient ones we only hear about. I just wish there was more consistency in sentencing.

Gatling

Now the issue will be if he /his legal team launch an appeal for the heavy sentence ,

Peregrine

And 0 years suspended..

Good.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

How would you have the cheek to say the sentence was too harsh for taking a life. :mad: if it is appealed, I hope he gets an even longer one

..Brian..

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

Happy to see the heavy sentence, but I don't get the 'manslaughter' bit. He intended to kill somebody, and he did kill somebody. It was murder.

This is total guess work but if I intended to kill you, murder, shot at you and missed hitting and killing someone behind you, that would make it manslaughter. As in accidentally killing that person, their death was not my intent.

I'd gues the defence jumped on manslaughter to get a lighter sentence playing a technicality and the judge thre his full weight at it as a result. Fair play to him.

StinkyMunkey

I can't get my head around the fact it was defined as manslaughter 0.o he intentionally went out to commit cold blooded murder. Wtf did he think would happen firing a shotgun into a car full of people, just spray and pray you murder the right person??? The scumbag obviously knew where his gun was pointed and fired regardless of who died.

That all being said, the sentence was a good outcome.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

realies wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0731/465672-melanie-mccarthy-mcnamara/


A 24-year-old man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for his role in the killing of a 16-year-old girl.
Melanie McCarthy-McNamara was shot dead as she sat in a car in Tallaght on 8 February, 2012.
Keith Hall, 24, of Kilmartin Drive in Tallaght had pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter...

The judge said the use of drink, drugs or a dysfunctional background provided little or no defence or mitigation and he refused to suspend any portion of the 20-year sentence.
The victim's family said afterwards they were delighted with the sentence.


Its about time the judiciary stood up and be heard and imo this sentence is shouting out to be heard and as a warning to others. well done Judge.

The Court of Criminal Appeal will reduce it, guarenteed.

Kirby

..Brian.. wrote: »

This is total guess work but if I intended to kill you, murder, shot at you and missed hitting and killing someone behind you, that would make it manslaughter. As in accidentally killing that person, their death was not my intent.

That's completely ridiculous and mental gymnastics of the highest order.

Manslaughter is accidentally killing somebody. Like, If I threw a rock at a window and it hit you in the head. The intention was to break a window, not kill somebody.

This man intended to kill....the fact that he missed the target doesn't change the fact that he murdered somebody. His intent was to murder somebody. Manslaughter is a ridiculous charge and he only pleaded to it to avoid a larger sentence of murder.

Badly Drunk Boy

Then couldn't he also be charged with the attempted murder of the person he missed?

StinkyMunkey

..Brian.. wrote: »

This is total guess work but if I intended to kill you, murder, shot at you and missed hitting and killing someone behind you, that would make it manslaughter. As in accidentally killing that person, their death was not my intent.

I'd gues the defence jumped on manslaughter to get a lighter sentence playing a technicality and the judge thre his full weight at it as a result. Fair play to him.

I'm sorry but he knew well the likely outcome of firing the weapon and where it was pointed. Manslaughter is when someone dies through actions where there was no intent to kill. If you trying to tell me he pointed the gun and knowingly fired at a person and didn't intend to kill them - I'm at a loss.

..Brian..

Allow me to reiterate the first part of my post in bold.....this is total guesswork!

I think he should have been charged with murder, I don't know why he was charged with manslaughter, I was simply throwing out a guess as to why.

Sunnyisland

As far as I recall the news clip his role was to throw a rock at the window of the house to lure the occupants out of it and he helped dispose of the gun when the Santa Fe ran out of petrol at City West ?

homerjay2005

Gatling wrote: »

Still don't get the actual charge he knowingly fired a loaded gun into a car with people sitting in it should have been charged with murder

murder is all about intent. he didnt intend to kill this girl, it was somebody else.

by right, he should also have been charged with attempted murder of the others in the car, though i think the conviction is fair enough in terms of sentance.

StinkyMunkey

homerjay2005 wrote: »

murder is all about intent. he didnt intend to kill this girl, it was somebody else.

by right, he should also have been charged with attempted murder of the others in the car, though i think the conviction is fair enough in terms of sentance.

I disagree, if I shoot you in the head, and then turn and say I didn't mean to kill you - I'm talking out my ass.

T-Maxx

The death penalty should be brought back in, especially for scumbags like this.

spank_inferno

T-Maxx wrote: »

The death penalty should be brought back in.

No....no it shouldn't.

sdanseo

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

The Court of Criminal Appeal will reduce it, guarenteed.

And therein lies the problem.

I was toying with a few ways of phrasing this but the above kind of nails it. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentence in that it's entirely appropriate, but I disagree with it in the sense that it's inconsistent with other sentences for the same crime. Carney is famous for this.

There needs to be sentences that are consistently this high for this type of crime. And damn right that being a junkie is no defence, if anything it should be a crime against the public in itself (drugged and disorderly, just as drunk and disorderly is).

Gatling

homerjay2005 wrote: »

murder is all about intent. he didnt intend to kill this girl, it was somebody else.

by right, he should also have been charged with attempted murder of the others in the car, though i think the conviction is fair enough in terms of sentance.

Oh that's right he only threw stone ,

I can see the appeal headline judge reduces sentence for man who threw a stone during a shooting,

Death sentence should be brought back ,

Royal Irish

In my opinion the judge handed out a 20 year sentence not because its about time harsher, and lets be honest here, more realistic sentences be handed out, but because the court room was packed with the victims family members who were all travellers. Could you imagine the uproar in the courtroom if the judge handed out the usual lenient sentence for manslaughter we see so much in this country.

Sunnyisland

Royal Irish wrote: »

In my opinion the judge handed out a 20 year sentence not because its about time harsher, and lets be honest here, more realistic sentences be handed out, but because the court room was packed with the victims family members who were all travellers. Could you imagine the uproar in the courtroom if the judge handed out the usual lenient sentence for manslaughter we see so much in this country.

Don't think it anything to do with who was in the court, There have many people sentenced to long term imprisonments with lots of supporters in the public gallery ,most notably republican prisoners. imo.

wicklowstevo

a good judgment but the appeal courts will slash it,

would love to see proper sentencing coming into this country especially for reckless feckless **** like tis.

they tried to bring in something intelligent with the section fifty gangland laws and the judges used descression to reduce sentences down because of mitigation factors which are almost always bull ****.

might be a good idead to tighten up on the judges and stick in a few new ones ,

in fairness i ve read stuff from judges who feel they cant be harsh because the know the appeals court will slash the sentences.

hows about some victim rights instead of criminals rights eh

wicklowstevo

sdeire wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.

I was toying with a few ways of phrasing this but the above kind of nails it. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentence in that it's entirely appropriate, but I disagree with it in the sense that it's inconsistent with other sentences for the same crime. Carney is famous for this.

There needs to be sentences that are consistently this high for this type of crime. And damn right that being a junkie is no defence, if anything it should be a crime against the public in itself (drugged and disorderly, just as drunk and disorderly is).

side bar judge `
drunk and disorderly is a british or american thing

in ireland its intoxicated in a public place , through drink or drugs or a combination of both.

jlm29

I'll change the direction of this thread slightly. Did anyone see the news this evening? Her family looked like they were at a hen party, not in a courtroom. They were only missing the fluffy ears. I could not get over the carry on of them. So I'd say yes- the judge would have been heckled to a height if the sentence had been any less.
Though the reasons don't really matter- an appropriate sentence was handed down.

garv123

realies wrote: »

As far as I recall the news clip his role was to throw a rock at the window of the house to lure the occupants out of it and he helped dispose of the gun when the Santa Fe ran out of petrol at City West ?

And fire 2 shots in the window of the car with a shotgun?

DainBramage

jlm29 wrote: »

I'll change the direction of this thread slightly. Did anyone see the news this evening? Her family looked like they were at a hen party, not in a courtroom. They were only missing the fluffy ears. I could not get over the carry on of them. So I'd say yes- the judge would have been heckled to a height if the sentence had been any less.
Though the reasons don't really matter- an appropriate sentence was handed down.

Yeah noticed this on the news.about 20 mainly female supporters with matching pink and white t shirts etc. They have every right to be happy with this just verdict but ****ing hell, a little subtlety people.

ardle1

Royal Irish wrote: »

In my opinion the judge handed out a 20 year sentence not because its about time harsher, and lets be honest here, more realistic sentences be handed out, but because the court room was packed with the victims family members who were all travellers. Could you imagine the uproar in the courtroom if the judge handed out the usual lenient sentence for manslaughter we see so much in this country.

Cant imagine any known reason that those people would effect the outcome of his sentence!mayb it's about time judges started to notice the plea bargaining and shinanagans that goes on between solicitors and barristers,it's bad enough when it comes to a simple car crash or shop lifting.:mad:

Esel

garv123 wrote: »

And fire 2 shots in the window of the car with a shotgun?

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't the gunman.

Gatling

Esel wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't the gunman.

According to him he only threw a brick and ran out of petrol 5 mins away ,

kowloon

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

I remember a similar case where someone ran over and killed someone but hit the wrong person. They also got done for manslaughter.

Sunnyisland

ardle1 wrote: »

Cant imagine any known reason that those people would effect the outcome of his sentence!mayb it's about time judges started to notice the plea bargaining and shinanagans that goes on between solicitors and barristers,it's bad enough when it comes to a simple car crash or shop lifting.:mad:

As all judges were at one stage solicitors and as far as I know barristers to they are quite aware of the legal games that go on between both parties.

hairyslug

On the murder/manslaughter charge, I think he was originally charged with murder but admitted manslaughter which the court accepted to speed up the process in the courts, tbh if he had been done for murder he probably would not have got more, I think also that having 112 other convictions may have played some part in the sentencing.
I just hope that more judges are like this and start to hand.down some decent stretches of time

Dude111

realies wrote:

A 24-year-old man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for his role in the killing of a 16-year-old girl

Im sorry but this idiot should have more!!!!!

HE TOOK SOMEONE'S LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!

arybvtcw0eolkf

YFlyer wrote: »

You wouldn't get that for murder.

You're correct, he'd have got more ~ he's have been convicted for life!.

People mistake what a life sentence is, although people get early releases (I think the average is about 12-14 yrs) you're released on licence and the conviction is there for the rest of your ie ~ ie you can be returned to prison at anytime to serve out more of your life sentence (I know, it never happens).

But this lad will serve his sentence and (if he doesn't appeal) in twenty years he has served his time and society can never get a second bite of the cherry, we know he'll be released early but the point is a murder conviction will always be longer than a manslaughter one.

seamus

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

..Brian.. wrote: »

This is total guess work but if I intended to kill you, murder, shot at you and missed hitting and killing someone behind you, that would make it manslaughter. As in accidentally killing that person, their death was not my intent.

The law is that if you go out with the intention of killing someone and a person dies, then it's murder, even if the person you killed wasn't the intended target.

There was a case (last year?) where a woman drove a car at her ex with the intention of killing him, but at the last second his Dad got in the way and was killed. She was tried for murder, but mounted a defence on the basis that once she saw his Dad step in, her murderous intent disappeared and she tried to brake (but accelerated instead). She won that one and was done for manslaughter instead.

In this specific case he was given the option to plead guilty to manslaughter and knowing that a murder conviction was likely, his solicitor probably advised him to plead guilty for an easier sentence.

Judge Carney is in an ongoing battle with the court of criminal appeal in regards to the changing of sentences and for the last two years has been handing out bizarre sentences all over the place, knowing that the court of appeal will have to clean up his mess. This is the same, it's just a political football from Carney. This sentence will be appealed and reduced to ten years or something.

TheGunns

Punishment in Ireland is still far too nice. Personally would like to see people locked up until they're no longer a big threat to society. With good behaviour, couldn't this guy get out before he's 40?

Omackeral

Just so everyone is aware, he won't serve 20years. He,like everyone else, will get 25% remission meaning he'll serve 15 years.

Given that he wasn't the actual gun man, I think the 20 year sentence is fair. We constantly knock judges for being too lenient. I think it's time this one is commended.

Pro Hoc Vice

YFlyer wrote: »

You wouldn't get that for murder.

Murder in Ireland is a Mandatory life sentence, the average served is 17 years, with a number of people serving close to 30 years. A 20 year sentence imposed for manslaughter will result in max 15 years served.

F35

Yep, 20 sounds fair to me,

...if he actually got 20

Pro Hoc Vice

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

Happy to see the heavy sentence, but I don't get the 'manslaughter' bit. He intended to kill somebody, and he did kill somebody. It was murder.

He knew there was to be a shooting but he did not do the shooting, the article implies that there was a jury trial, so I assume the jury with all the evidence decided it was not murder.

Pro Hoc Vice

LexieOnRale wrote: »

How would you have the cheek to say the sentence was too harsh for taking a life. :mad: if it is appealed, I hope he gets an even longer one

On Appeal that is a distinct possibility, the Court is able to increase as well as decrease.

Pro Hoc Vice

..Brian.. wrote: »

This is total guess work but if I intended to kill you, murder, shot at you and missed hitting and killing someone behind you, that would make it manslaughter. As in accidentally killing that person, their death was not my intent.

I'd gues the defence jumped on manslaughter to get a lighter sentence playing a technicality and the judge thre his full weight at it as a result. Fair play to him.

Your guess work is wrong, if you intend to seriously harm or kill mr. a but instead kill mr. B that is murder. But here he did not have the gun or use the gun, the State I guess argued common purpose which I assume the jury rejected.

TheIrishGrover

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

No. Only if you intended to kill the seventh person you met but "accidentally" killed the eight ........

johnnyskeleton

endacl wrote: »

The convicted prick admitted he went out with the definite intent to kill somebody. The fact that he hit the wrong target apparently made it manslaughter.

If somebody could explain this? Does it mean that if I leave the house now with the definite intent to kill the seventh person I meet, obviously not knowing who that could be, the charge would be manslaughter and not murder?

Happy to see the heavy sentence, but I don't get the 'manslaughter' bit. He intended to kill somebody, and he did kill somebody. It was murder.

He didn't have the gun. He threw a rock and the house, lured them out and two other people (presumably unidentified) shot her.

He was charged with murder but it looks like a jury didn't convict of murder and accepted his manslaughter plea. This could be because he didn't believe that the others would shoot her dead or even cause serious injury, or it could be for any number of other reasons juries reach their verdicts.

Pro Hoc Vice

..Brian.. wrote: »

Allow me to reiterate the first part of my post in bold.....this is total guesswork!

I think he should have been charged with murder, I don't know why he was charged with manslaughter, I was simply throwing out a guess as to why.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder, meaning he was charged with murder, I assume the jury found him not guilty of murder.

Artful_Badger

homerjay2005 wrote: »

hopefully this is the start of proper justice in this country where people get the sentences they deserve.

You know its just one rogue judge and the sentence will be reduced by another one on appeal.

johnnyskeleton

EB_2013 wrote: »

Good to see the heavy sentence handed down in this case as its usually the lenient ones we only hear about. I just wish there was more consistency in sentencing.

It's usually the lenient ones "we hear" about, "we hear" is the important part. This is a typical enough sentence from Mr justice Carney in this type of circumstance, but journalists know that the lenient ones will attract greater readership.

To be honest, I'm amazed that this is being discussed in after hours at all - usually these normal to heavy sentences are ignored here in favour of those sentences that give an unrepresentative view of sentencing so that people can complain about judges.