Garda facing child porn charges loses anonymity

snubbleste

A Garda wanted to remain anonymous when facing charges of possession of child pornography dating back to 2011. For some reason he seems to think that being a Garda accords him a special privilege before the courts. However, the Independent, Daily Mail & RTÉ, challenged the reporting restrictions imposed and had the anonymity order lifted.
Yeah for media freedom.

Joe O’Connor (53), who is stationed at a Dublin city-centre garda station but is currently suspended, is accused of possession of 655 child abuse images at his west Dublin home between 30 July and 2 August 2011, charges he denies. The judge held that there was no evidence that Mr O’Connor’s right to a fair trial will be affected by the lifting of the anonymity order.

But here is the bit that does not surprise me, a long serving Garda struggling with a mortgage at 53 and gets legal aid!

Earlier legal aid had been granted after the court heard that he had a substantial mortgage, there had been a significant reduction in his circumstances and that he was struggling.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/child-porn-garda-loses-right-to-anonymity-29625494.html

Cee-Jay-Cee

snubbleste wrote: »

A Garda wanted to remain anonymous when facing charges of possession of child pornography dating back to 2011. For some reason he seems to think that being a Garda accords him a special privilege before the courts. However, the Independent, Daily Mail & RTÉ, challenged the reporting restrictions imposed and had the anonymity order lifted.
Yeah for media freedom.


But here is the bit that does not surprise me, a long serving Garda struggling with a mortgage at 53 and gets legal aid!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/child-porn-garda-loses-right-to-anonymity-29625494.html

Proper order that his name is published but in the same vein, every scumbag criminal, knacker and thief that cries poor me gets legal aid so I don't see why he shouldn't too.

Doc Ruby

Fair play the press. I'm kind of surprised to see the Indo in there though, didn't they fire some reporter for poking her nose into gyaarda business a while back?

humanji

Well, pretend for a second that he's not a garda and that he might be innocent. Is it a good thing for the media to demand the the right to put his name out in the public eye for the sake of selling more papers?

My name is URL

Everyone's anonymity should be protected in these cases until they have been found guilty.

Fred Cohen

My name is URL wrote: »

Everyone's anonymity should be protected in these cases until they have been found guilty.

Tend to agreed but should it apply to all criminal cases, no matter how trivial?

snubbleste

How much of an income would a long serving Garda have?
He must have seriously invested in property(+) to qualify for means-tested legal aid.

I'm of the opinion that he should be named, as a Garda, it is his job to be au fait with legislation and we the populace are 'supposed' to follow the standard set by those who administer the law.

tritium

snubbleste wrote: »

A Garda wanted to remain anonymous when facing charges of possession of child pornography dating back to 2011. For some reason he seems to think that being a Garda accords him a special privilege before the courts. However, the Independent, Daily Mail & RTÉ, challenged the reporting restrictions imposed and had the anonymity order lifted.
Yeah for media freedom.

Yeah, yay for exposing someone who has the right to the presumption of innocence at this point to a media glare that will destroy his reputation on the community regardless of the outcome of the case.

Yeah that free press really does care about rights that matter....

tritium

snubbleste wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that he should be named, as a Garda, it is his job to be au fait with legislation and we the populace are 'supposed' to follow the standard set by those who administer the law.

I would remind you that he is presumed innocent at this point. It is a farce of a law that allows the destruction of someone's good name while claiming to assume their virtue.

My name is URL

Fred Cohen wrote: »

Tend to agreed but should it apply to all criminal cases, no matter how trivial?

Not sure about all cases. Our judicial system depends a great deal on transparency and allowing members of the public to attend trials etc. Probably wouldn't be possible to hide the identity of everyone who is accused and facing criminal charges.

But it should certainly be considered in cases like this, where despite the possibility of the accused being innocent; their character may be irreparably damaged as a result of being publicly named in media etc.

I mean lets be honest.. if he's found 'not guilty' (and I'm in no way suggesting that he is).. you can't shake off a headline such as the one in the Indo "Child porn Garda".. They seem to have him down as guilty already =/

nullzero

My name is URL wrote: »

Everyone's anonymity should be protected in these cases until they have been found guilty.

That's all fine and dandy if you're looking at the situation logically, you haven't given any thought to how logic may affect any angry mob who want to take the law onto their own hands in a situation like this.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

humanji wrote: »

Well, pretend for a second that he's not a garda and that he might be innocent. Is it a good thing for the media to demand the the right to put his name out in the public eye for the sake of selling more papers?

While I agree with your sentiment entirely the problem is that if he was not a Garda he would have been named from the get go. The law is very clear on that, all defendants except in very limited cases(rape for example) are named.
perhaps what we need is a system where no defendant is named unless they are found guilty.

Sh1tbag OToole

Will the hysteria over child porn and paedophiles ever die down?

I'm all for freedom of speech and that good stuff but you see even if it was in every rag tomorrow that the guards picked up the wrong computer or that the porn was planted he will forever be known in his area as the possible paedophile guard.

Even if he moves to another country people will google him eventually and find this story so he can be ostracised there too. People are just that judgemental

I agree that there shouldn't be double standards here, but I also think that all accused should be anonymous until and if found guilty ;s

Kinzig

Maybe the porn was just resting in his account:pac::pac:

Degringola

Those property portfolios don't pay for themselves you know.
No wonder Gardai can't afford to eat.
The taxpayer is now subsidising his mortgages by giving him free legal aid.
Must get me a few jumbo mortgages so I can claim free stuff off the state.
In a sane country he would be forced to sell off an asset to pay for his legal costs.
Nor does that overcoat look like it came from Penneys. You couldn't make it up.

But yes, anonymous till/if proven guilty.

Sh1tbag OToole

Degringola wrote: »

Those property portfolios don't pay for themselves you know.
No wonder Gardai can't afford to eat.
The taxpayer is now subsidising his mortgages by giving him free legal aid.
Must get me a few jumbo mortgages so I can claim free stuff off the state.
In a sane country he would be forced to sell off an asset to pay for his legal costs.
Nor does that overcoat look like it came from Penneys. You couldn't make it up.

Well ideally the legal system should not be the preserve of those who have went to college for many years to study it and one would be perfectly capable of defending themselves without taking on extra risk of being convicted

Selling your stuff definitely shouldn't be necessary

tritium

Degringola wrote: »

Those property portfolios don't pay for themselves you know.
No wonder Gardai can't afford to eat.
The taxpayer is now subsidising his mortgages by giving him free legal aid.
Must get me a few jumbo mortgages so I can claim free stuff off the state.
In a sane country he would be forced to sell off an asset to pay for his legal costs.
Nor does that overcoat look like it came from Penneys. You couldn't make it up.

We don't know the guys circumstances in terms of assets and income but if he's suspended, even with pay I'm guessing he's missing out on additional overtime etc. If he's worked in the guards for several years he'll have paid the cost of his legal aid many times over in tax.

TBH would think him more deserving than some scroat who's never worked a day in their lives and exists as a professional parasite while whining about how hard they have it.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Degringola wrote: »

Those property portfolios don't pay for themselves you know.
No wonder Gardai can't afford to eat.
The taxpayer is now subsidising his mortgages by giving him free legal aid.
Must get me a few jumbo mortgages so I can claim free stuff off the state.
In a sane country he would be forced to sell off an asset to pay for his legal costs.
Nor does that overcoat look like it came from Penneys. You couldn't make it up.

But yes, anonymous till/if proven guilty.

You know nothing about his circumstances. He's suspended without pay, only asset he may have is his house occupied by his family so it's not that much of a stretch to think that he cannot afford a solicitor

But I suppose any excuse to hop on your soapbox eh? btw, as someone who has worked in district courts in the past, I know there are stringent guidelines before legal aid is granted

CrazyRabbit

Some people in this thread have already found him guilty. That's why anonymity until proven guilty is so important.

Caonima

humanji wrote: »

Is it a good thing for the media to demand the the right to put his name out in the public eye for the sake of selling more papers?

They never demanded the right to print his name. They challenged a court order pointing out that he had no right to anonymity, and they succeeded. And indeed, he had no right to anonymity. And here we go, another spa going down the road of "they only did it to sell more papers" when it's all over the internet now (do the internetz sellz the paperz?).

Zen65

It is alleged he had 92 images of child explicit sex, 136 images of child exposure, 85 movies of child explicit sex, one movie file of child exposure and 341 other computer graphic images of child porn.

Some poor analyst had to go through those files to produce these statistics. . . I don't envy him the task. I recall a journalist on the Late Late Show many years ago describing how a Garda showed him one picture of abuse (as research for a story he did) and he said he wanted to get sick on the spot.

Stheno

My name is URL wrote: »

Everyone's anonymity should be protected in these cases until they have been found guilty.

I tend to agree with this, this man has now been tarnished regardless of hsi guilt or not

Caonima

Zen65 wrote: »

Some poor analyst had to go through those files to produce these statistics. . . I don't envy him the task. I recall a journalist on the Late Late Show many years ago describing how a Garda showed him one picture of abuse (as research for a story he did) and he said he wanted to get sick on the spot.

Yeah, because nobody embellishes on the LLS, or on any chats how for that matter.

Doc Ruby

He looks about as straight as a three euro coin.

seenitall

Caonima wrote: »

Yeah, because nobody embellishes on the LLS, or on any chats how for that matter.

You are a very innocent person if you find it difficult to believe there is indeed the sort of depravity and cruelty recorded and documented out there that would make a sane, non-psychopatic person sick to their stomach. Literally.

Filibuster

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Some people in this thread have already found him guilty. That's why anonymity until proven guilty is so important.

So we should have closed court cases or something?? The justice system should be open and transparent. The media should have full access & reporting rights.

Caonima

seenitall wrote: »

You are a very innocent person if you find it difficult to believe there is indeed the sort of depravity and cruelty recorded and documented out there that would make a sane, non-psychopatic person sick to their stomach. Literally.

How does that make me innocent? We're not all closeted keyboard warriors. I've seen my share. But I (A) worked as a journalist, and (B) have been to RTE during live shows, and know that the producers have a habit of "preparing" their guests (avoiding using the word sensationalising).

ferretone

Degringola wrote: »

Those property portfolios don't pay for themselves you know.
No wonder Gardai can't afford to eat.

Hmm, wonder what that squad car was doing double-parked outside the chipper, causing chaos on Main Street in Longford on Monday, and the 2 uniforms inside queueing - must be they give them free chips for their trouble so, poor dears :pac:

Sh1tbag OToole

Caonima wrote: »

Yeah, because nobody embellishes on the LLS, or on any chats how for that matter.

and besides there is only so much damage a rectangle filled with pixels can do to a person

(not much)

Caonima

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

and besides there is only so much damage a rectangle filled with pixels can do to a person

(not much)

Careful now, the rectangle with pixels I'm staring at right now is saying bad things to me. I might... just...hurl...

seenitall

Caonima wrote: »

How does that make me innocent? We're not all closeted keyboard warriors. I've seen my share. But I (A) worked as a journalist, and (B) have been to RTE during live shows, and know that the producers have a habit of "preparing" their guests (avoiding using the word sensationalising).

Perhaps you prefer the word 'naive'?

Just because tv chat shows do what tv chat shows do, doesn't mean that that particular guy wasn't telling the truth, either.

Which in itself is a moot point, even if he lied through his teeth for fun, because these kind of things DO exist. Otherwise there would be no pedophiles, rapists, murderers, and barely any need for Gardai. Just ask the parents of the two little girls who went to a birthday party recently.

I am kind of interested in why you would try to deny reality?

CrazyRabbit

Filibuster wrote: »

So we should have closed court cases or something?? The justice system should be open and transparent. The media should have full access & reporting rights.

The rights of an innocent person are important. Once the case is over, all the (suitable) court evidence/transcripts etc can be made public to ensure transparency. If the defendant is innocent though, their name should be redacted.

Transparency and the rights of the innocent are not mutually exclusive.

Dravokivich

Scaramanga 4 wrote: »

How do people still get caught with child porn ?

The same way someone gets caught with anything, there'll be a trail leading to'em. Particularly with digital data.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dravokivich wrote: »

The same way someone gets caught with anything, there'll be a trail leading to'em. Particularly with digital data.

I'm of that opinion that, if that was the case, there'd be a lot more cases before the courts.

Let's face it: if that's how he got caught, is he the only person in Ireland downlaoding it? How come the others are still at large?

kerry4sam

linky

That Guard lost his anonyimity through the action of the Courts, the Irish Judicial System. They decided this person should be named!

That Guard is currently suspended too. I would not be surprised if more Gardaí were named and shamed in the public for their behaviour too, as a result of this and their own actions as serving full-time members. It goes to show that no-one is above the law and all should be treated the same regardless of any contacts.

I agree with the Defence Solicitor Mr. Kenny that

the book of evidence to be served within four weeks to allow the case to be sent forward for trial as soon as possible as the allegations were a cause of stress and anxiety to his client.

For the sake of all concerned, including the Guard himself; his family and any vulnerable person who ever approached him in his line of work as an alleged trustworthy, honest, reliable member of An Garda Síochána.

Newaglish

and 341 other computer graphic images of child porn.

I know it's not very pleasant but... why is it illegal to have computer graphic images of such things? I'd imagine it's a fairly victimless crime?

lahalane

Newaglish wrote: »

I know it's not very pleasant but... why is it illegal to have computer graphic images of such things? I'd imagine it's a fairly victimless crime?

I'd imagine the children don't upload the photos themselves...

Newaglish

lahalane wrote: »

I'd imagine the children don't upload the photos themselves...

I understood it to mean they were some kind of digital renders made with computer graphics. Unless I'm misreading it?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lahalane wrote: »

I'd imagine the children don't upload the photos themselves...

He's referring to images created by CGI or hand drawn.

lahalane

Newaglish wrote: »

I understood it to mean they were some kind of digital renders made with computer graphics. Unless I'm misreading it?

Apologies, Im the one misreading.

seamus

Newaglish wrote: »

I know it's not very pleasant but... why is it illegal to have computer graphic images of such things? I'd imagine it's a fairly victimless crime?

Child porn hysteria.

Probably has some basis in a nonsense "gateway theory" that looking at any image depicting child pornography, whether it's real or not, will cause the viewer to become a violent sex offender. The same theory on which some people want to ban porn because apparently it creates rapists.

Interestingly, any form of artwork, be it visual, auditory or text, which depicts a child in any act of a sexual nature, is child pornorgraphy in Irish law. A lot of Japanese people would be fncked.

Of course it needs amendment to something more sensible, but naturally nobody gives a fnck about people who like to view child porn, it's not exactly a burning debate which will contribute anything of benefit to society. If you get off on child porn, go seek out help, not imagery.

I am a little disappointed by the ruling. As came up with the Michael LaVell case, everyone should be entitled to anonymity unless they're proven guilty of the crimes they're accused of.

TheDoc

My name is URL wrote: »

Everyone's anonymity should be protected in these cases until they have been found guilty.

This,

No idea why everyone is giving the fair play milarky. It's only done so that more papers can be shifted.

This is an absolutely shocking decision. Especially in these sort of cases. There is a reason anonymity is put in place from the start. Similar to the Athlone case. No one was even officially charged yet a mob of 500 people were ready to lynch a fella in the street.

If the Guard is found innocent, his career is still in tatters, although he would be due a fairly serious payout from a legal case, based on his name being published.

Suspects should be anonymous until proven guilty, it's absurdly retarded to even contemplate anything else. This country get's more moronic every day

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Interestingly, the guy charged with the child assaults in Athlone has been granted anonymity.

Sounsd a bit like double standards in reverse: either both are intitled to anonymity or neither of them is.

seamus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Interestingly, the guy charged with the child assaults in Athlone has been granted anonymity.

Sounsd a bit like double standards in reverse: either both are intitled to anonymity or neither of them is.

In this case it is most likely to protect the identities of the girls involved. Very typical when the man is a relative or friend.

Myself and my wife were discussing this and she was perplexed as to how a man got into a party and took two kids without anyone noticing. Of course the man was probably there by invite - a family member or neighbour, who thought he could slip out and back without being noticed

Holsten

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Interestingly, the guy charged with the child assaults in Athlone has been granted anonymity.

Sounsd a bit like double standards in reverse: either both are intitled to anonymity or neither of them is.

That's because he has known victims. They cannot be named in a rape case.

sopretty

As far as I know his anonymity is being protected in order to protect the anonymity of the 'alleged' victims. The garda case is different.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seamus wrote: »

In this case it is most likely to protect the identities of the girls involved. Very typical when the man is a relative or friend.

Myself and my wife were discussing this and she was perplexed as to how a man got into a party and took two kids without anyone noticing. Of course the man was probably there by invite - a family member or neighbour, who thought he could slip out and back without being noticed

He's reportedly homeless and not known to them (I'd like to know wh a 9 year old is going off with a stranger, but I don't want to finger-point).

I see your point about the kids' anonymity, but I'd imagine that their identity s probably known already by more locals than the accused.

Femme_Fatale

Doc Ruby wrote: »

He looks about as straight as a three euro coin.

"Listen to the music, Marge - he's evil!"

oconnorw

Listen it took two years to get to court. The book of evidence will not be produced for a month. Do you think your name should be exposed under those circumstances. You are not guilty until proven guilty. So in a months time if guilty then yes expose the guy and if bot found guilty do not. The press and rte are the scum of the earth. i rest my case