Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Garda facing child porn charges loses anonymity

  • 01-10-2013 07:24PM
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭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


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,234 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,494 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 189 ✭✭Fred Cohen


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭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....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,494 ✭✭✭✭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 =/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,952 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    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.

    Glazers Out!



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭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


  • Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Ensley Immense Celery


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 222 ✭✭Kinzig


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 415 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 772 ✭✭✭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?).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 772 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    He looks about as straight as a three euro coin.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 361 ✭✭Filibuster


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 772 ✭✭✭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).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 638 ✭✭✭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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭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)


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 772 ✭✭✭Caonima


    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... :D


Advertisement