Justice wins out, eventually!

Sir Humphrey Appleby

So sex attacker Anthony Lyons, who thought he could buy his way out of a long prison sentence is going back to jail.
For how long has yet to be decided, but fair play to the DPP for appealing the case and fair play to the Court of Criminal Appeal for showing up how pathetic Judge Desmond Hogans original sentence was.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/lyons-to-return-to-jail-for-sexual-assault-after-state-wins-appeal-of-sentence-1.1598822

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Proper order.

Mr Williams

He should be sent down for 20 years minimum.

dodderangler

Not good enough for a scumbag like that.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

dodderangler wrote: »

Not good enough for a scumbag like that.

In fairness, we don't what his sentence is going to be, but I doubt he will be so arrogant after it!

Boombastic

The Sunday world reported yesterday that he will be claiming the 'distress' of it all on him is punishment enough. They have pictures of him on some golf course in Dubai. I'm glad it is going to be looked at again. I hope the judge who originally suspended the 5.5 years is de-benched.


Hopefully this scum gets sent down for a long time

dodderangler

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

In fairness, we don't what his sentence is going to be, but I doubt he will be so arrogant after it!

Shouldn't be a sentence
Just leave the fcuker in there

camel jockey

Hopefully he won't flee the country in the meantime.

Boombastic

Can anyone translate the bolded sentence below in to English for me? Thanks


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/lyons-to-return-to-jail-for-sexual-assault-after-state-wins-appeal-of-sentence-1.1598822

Defence barrister Patrick Gageby SC said Lyons was the most unlikely person to have committed an offence like this. “He was a man who had never been in trouble of any kind,” he added.

“He was a man who was quite able to ask of gardai was there any suggestion of suspicion against him in relation to any other matter.

wp_rathead

Boombastic wrote: »

Can anyone translate the bolded sentence below in to English for me? Thanks


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/lyons-to-return-to-jail-for-sexual-assault-after-state-wins-appeal-of-sentence-1.1598822

Defence barrister Patrick Gageby SC said Lyons was the most unlikely person to have committed an offence like this. “He was a man who had never been in trouble of any kind,” he added.

“He was a man who was quite able to ask of gardai was there any suggestion of suspicion against him in relation to any other matter.

Basically a "I may have done X, but I never did A,B,C,D,E,F,G etc." argument..

Holsten

I find this messed up more so than his original sentence.

He served time in prison, released and now the judges feel they need to send him back due to mostly public opinion? Stupid.

Sending this man to jail will do nothing for his victim, nor for anyone else.

ShagNastii

It's that line you keep hearing in reports.

"He alleged that he was overcome with an urge probably brought on by a mixture of drink, cholesterol medication and cough syrup".

What a cop out from an utter scumbag.

poundapunnet

Holsten wrote: »

I find this messed up more so than his original sentence.

He served time in prison, released and now the judges feel they need to send him back due to mostly public opinion? Stupid.

Sending this man to jail will do nothing for his victim, nor for anyone else.

Could nip in the bud the implicit message that you can buy the right to rape.

Holsten

Holsten wrote: »

I find this messed up more so than his original sentence.

He served time in prison, released and now the judges feel they need to send him back due to mostly public opinion? Stupid.

Sending this man to jail will do nothing for his victim, nor for anyone else.

Yea it will. It's called justice, y'know, the punishment fitting the crime and all that malarkey.

cletus van damme

Mr Williams wrote: »

He should be sent down for 20 years minimum.

enlighten me?

I've read (and heard) in the media that he rugby tackled the lady to the ground and then groped her.
terrible behavior without a doubt but worthy of 20years?

come now - I usually hang 'em high like the rest of the rabble but unless you know something I don't, it seems unreasonable wanting 20years.

Tombi!

While this is obviously great news, how was it decided it was too lenient?
Did the accused appeal for a harsher sentence or how does it work?

cletus van damme

cletus van damme wrote: »

enlighten me?

I've read (and heard) in the media that he rugby tackled the lady to the ground and then groped her.
terrible behavior without a doubt but worthy of 20years?

come now - I usually hang 'em high like the rest of the rabble but unless you know something I don't, it seems unreasonable wanting 20years.

The report says he violently physically and sexually assaulted her. Tackles and gropes sound pretty innocuous compared to what it really was.

I agree that 20 years is overkill, but it wasn't just a tackle and grope. That girl must have been terrified. Don't forget, for all she knew she was about to be raped and killed. The trauma of that will probably take her the next 20 years to learn to live with.

cletus van damme

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

While this is obviously great news, how was it decided it was too lenient?
Did the accused appeal for a harsher sentence or how does it work?

The DPP brings that type of challenge (and did in this case).

Tbh harsh as it sounds if the victim (not just in this case) could challenge the courts we'd have an endless cycle of challenges.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Boombastic wrote: »

Can anyone translate the bolded sentence below in to English for me? Thanks


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/lyons-to-return-to-jail-for-sexual-assault-after-state-wins-appeal-of-sentence-1.1598822

Defence barrister Patrick Gageby SC said Lyons was the most unlikely person to have committed an offence like this. “He was a man who had never been in trouble of any kind,” he added.

“He was a man who was quite able to ask of gardai was there any suggestion of suspicion against him in relation to any other matter.

I know what that sounds like!

Tombi!

Now that I think of it, was this the man who apparently followed the woman down the road or something? She was trying to get her boyfriend on the phone because she was obviously scared.

Tombi!

cletus van damme wrote: »

The DPP brings that type of challenge (and did in this case).

Tbh harsh as it sounds if the victim (not just in this case) could challenge the courts we'd have an endless cycle of challenges.

Ah, so the DPP is sort of a neutral party that intervenes if they think justice wasn't done properly?

Grayson

cletus van damme wrote: »

enlighten me?

I've read (and heard) in the media that he rugby tackled the lady to the ground and then groped her.
terrible behavior without a doubt but worthy of 20years?

come now - I usually hang 'em high like the rest of the rabble but unless you know something I don't, it seems unreasonable wanting 20years.

I agree. the original sentence was lenient, but 20 years is excessive.

one thing though, he was fined 75k and that was to be given to the victim right?. I hope they don't remove that and she still gets it. Money doesn't solve a lot of problems but a lack of it can make things harder. If she doesn't want it she can give it to charity, but it'd be nice for her to have the option.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

While this is obviously great news, how was it decided it was too lenient?
Did the accused appeal for a harsher sentence or how does it work?

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the leniency of the sentence, and he is not the accused, he is the convicted.

force eleven

The streets are safer again for a while.

cletus van damme

cletus van damme wrote: »

The DPP brings that type of challenge (and did in this case).

Tbh harsh as it sounds if the victim (not just in this case) could challenge the courts we'd have an endless cycle of challenges.

I think if it onus was on the victim, the trauma of reliving the situation again would be enough to discourage a fair proportion. It's best the DPP does it on behalf of society, not just the victim, anyway.

Holsten

I wonder if she could choose, take the 75k and his current sentence stands, or no 75k and he gets re-sentenced.

Holsten

force eleven wrote: »

The streets are safer again for a while.

You cannot be serious?!?!?!?!?! Hahaha!

Tombi!

Holsten wrote: »

I wonder if she could choose, take the 75k and his current sentence stands, or no 75k and he gets re-sentenced.

I'd wager she'd take the sentence, TBH. The peace of mind someone like that is locked up is better than 75K to a lot of victims.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

I agree. the original sentence was lenient, but 20 years is excessive.

one thing though, he was fined 75k and that was to be given to the victim right?. I hope they don't remove that and she still gets it. Money doesn't solve a lot of problems but a lack of it can make things harder. If she doesn't want it she can give it to charity, but it'd be nice for her to have the option.

It would be nice for her to be able to access any medical help she needs to deal with the aftermath privately, rather than wait many months for psychological or psychiatric help on the public service. That's where the money might be very useful to her.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Grayson wrote: »

I agree. the original sentence was lenient, but 20 years is excessive.

one thing though, he was fined 75k and that was to be given to the victim right?. I hope they don't remove that and she still gets it. Money doesn't solve a lot of problems but a lack of it can make things harder. If she doesn't want it she can give it to charity, but it'd be nice for her to have the option.

She refused to accept it and had made it known to the original sentencing court that she would not accept it.
The original sentencing judge ignored her views and chose to let the bollix buy his way to freedom anyway!

Holsten

Holsten wrote: »

I wonder if she could choose, take the 75k and his current sentence stands, or no 75k and he gets re-sentenced.

Holsten wrote: »

You cannot be serious?!?!?!?!?! Hahaha!

Spell your point out. It's too subtle for me to make out.

Grayson

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

She refused to accept it and had made it known to the original sentencing court that she would not accept it.
The original sentencing judge ignored her views and chose to let the bollix buy his way to freedom anyway!

Hopefully they let her have both. An increased sentence for him and the money

Boombastic

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I know what that sounds like!

It seemed that way to me too

Sir Humphrey Appleby

wprathead wrote: »

Basically a "I may have done X, but I never did A,B,C,D,E,F,G etc." argument..

More like, have any of the others come forward!:mad:

poeticseraphim

I hope the appointment of this judge is reviewed.

Why was the issue of compensation considered a mitigating factor in this case?

The sentence was criticised by a number of organisations at the time, including the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, which called it “unusual”.

It certainly seemed irregular. I wonder is there more to it?


It seems to be the case that the only reason he denied the charge at all was so he could submit a defense of involuntary intoxication.

The 52-year-old claimed he was overcome by an “irresistible urge” due to the combination of alcohol, cholesterol medicine and cough syrup — but the jury rejected his claim.

That was an actual defense folks.

They seemed to be saying that if that had not been the case he might have plead guilty. Can someone explain? Or is that simply to make him look better for not pleading guilty and showing contrition?

I would also stress the need for appropriate sentencing rather than rabble raising and I hope he receives counseling appropriate for sex offenders and substance abuse.

Sentencing should be dependent on the law, the severity of the crime and it's impact on the victim, the amount of remorse shown, a potential for rehabilitation and any potential danger to society.

Also no one could deny that this case was affected by his being a millionaire and the fact that it was rectified so quickly in comparison to the usual timescale of the justice system has got to be to do with the media and public outcry. The family were originally told to hope for an appeal date in 2015.

Whether you are a millionaire or a poor man you should be fairly treated and if necessary punished.

Is anything going to happen about Judge Hogan?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Is anything going to happen about Judge Hogan?

Nope.
Despite only last week having been accused by a High Court Judge of "of highly inappropriate interference in a family law case".

poundapunnet

ShagNastii wrote: »

It's that line you keep hearing in reports.

"He alleged that he was overcome with an urge probably brought on by a mixture of drink, cholesterol medication and cough syrup".

What a cop out from an utter scumbag.

For fuck's sake. Don't you hate when that happens :rolleyes:

cletus van damme

Candie wrote: »

I think if it onus was on the victim, the trauma of reliving the situation again would be enough to discourage a fair proportion. It's best the DPP does it on behalf of society, not just the victim, anyway.

in this case , i agree
but my point related to all cases.

Benbulnen64

Humphrey

It's not a case of the judge ignoring the complainant's views. and her outline of her adverse experience. The judge would have been privy to her victim impact statement. However, in a victim impact statement she does not get to decide ( or even recommend upon) this man's sentence. Only the judge decides on that.

It is called the rule of law. The legislature sets down the maximum sentence for particular crimes. The judge looks to the max, s/he then places the offending on a scale of seriousness in relation to the most serious of that type of crime, s/he looks to the deterrence principle, considers any remorse expressed by the defendant and other personal circs. The judge then decides what an appropriate sentence is in the circumstances.

It is always open to the DPP to appeal sentence if there has been a demonstrable error of law on the Judge's part and/or the sentence imposed is either manifestly excessive or lenient in the circumstances.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Humphrey

It's not a case of the judge ignoring the complainant's views. and her outline of her adverse experience. The judge would have been privy to her victim impact statement. However, in a victim impact statement she does not get to decide ( or even recommend upon) this man's sentence. Only the judge decides on that.

It is called the rule of law. The legislature sets down the maximum sentence for particular crimes. The judge looks to the max, s/he then places the offending on a scale of seriousness in relation to the most serious of that type of crime, s/he looks to the deterrence principle, considers any remorse expressed by the defendant and other personal circs. The judge then decides what an appropriate sentence is in the circumstances. In this case he chose , for reasons known only to himself to ignore all of the above![/COLOR]
It is always open to the DPP to appeal sentence if there has been a demonstrable error of law on the Judge's part and/or the sentence imposed is either manifestly excessive or lenient in the circumstances.

I never said the victim could or should decide on the convicted attackers sentence.
I pointed to matter of fact that the victim had made it clear to the court previous to sentencing that she was not interested in receiving compensation from her attacker, a view that the Judge callously chose to ignore when perversely deciding to award her compensation so that he could suspend five and a half years her attackers sentence.
I note the DPP made the submission in the CCC that the Judge failed to take into account the effect of the attack on the victim, and it is fair to extrapolate from the decision of the court that they agreed.
As for the rule of law , you would do better to explain that concept to Judge Hogan, according to Mr Justice Henry Abbot, Hogan needs some guidance in that regard!

Eight Ball

The original judge should be up on charges also.

Benbulnen64

Humphrey

I don't think it's accurate to state that the judge ordered the fine/compo so that he COULD suspend part of the prison term imposed. It is ALWAYS open to a judge to suspend either the whole or part of the term of imprisonment imposed depending on the length of sentence imposed, his view of the seriousness of the offending and the circumstances involved, personal circs of offender, attempts by offender at rehabilitation, etc.

Eight ball, it us simply illogical to suggest that the judge should be up on charges when he was merely exercising his judicial function. The court of appeal has disagreed with him and overruled his decision. That is how the checks and balances of our criminal justice system operates.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Humphrey

I don't think it's accurate to state that the judge ordered the fine/compo so that he COULD suspend part of the prison term imposed. It is ALWAYS open to a judge to suspend either the whole or part of the term of imprisonment imposed depending on the length of sentence imposed, his view of the seriousness of the offending and the circumstances involved, personal circs of offender, attempts by offender at rehabilitation, etc.

Really? Judge Hogan stated in his sentencing that the compensation was a mitigating factor which influenced his decision.
And the appeal court have already ruled that he failed to take into account the seriousness of the offence and the effect on the victim.
I cannot for the life of me see why you appear determined to defend the indefensible.
It should also be noted that this same Judge attempted to improperly influence a High Court family case according to the Judge hearing that case, seems Hogan has a penchant for looking out for his friends!

Benbulnen64

Humphrey

I think we might be talking at cross purposes.. What I was referring to is the judge's power to suspend part of the term or the whole term irrespective of the 75K.


I have already acknowledged that the superior court overruled the judge so your raising that point again is redundant.

You are clouding the issue by bringing in the family court matter. To suggest that the judge is looking after his "friends" troubles me; unless you know for a fact
( not hearsay mind) that the offender here and the judge were friends, it is an outrageous allegation to make on your part.

I know neither the judge nor the offender so I am not, as you spuriously suggest, trying to defend the indefensible. I'm simply setting out what the legal position is when it comes to the imposing of a non custodial term such as a suspended term.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Humphrey

I'm simply setting out what the legal position is when it comes to the imposing of a non custodial term such as a suspended term.

And I am simply setting out that in the case of a rich man this judge did not follow the proper legal position, nor did he follow the correct legal position when he accosted a High Court judge who has since claimed that he made "improper interference" (High Court Judge Henry Abbots words) in a family law case being heard in the High Court.

Benbulnen64

Again you bring in the blind of the family court, totally irrelevant to this matter, which shows your points in respect to this matter cannot be compellingly made.

I do not believe that the offender here was treated differently because he's rich. He was a first offender at age 50 and that, as well as the seriousness of the offence, was taken into account. Obviously seriousness of offence in appeal court's view was not given primacy by the judge at first instance, hence the successful appeal.

Ok if you're someone who's not too well off yourself, but it is still not right for you to discriminate against this man and bear him more ill will merely because he is rich.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Again you bring in the blind of the family court, totally irrelevant to this matter, which shows your points in respect to this matter cannot be compellingly made.

I do not believe that the offender here was treated differently because he's rich. He was a first offender at age 50 and that, as well as the seriousness of the offence, was taken into account. Obviously seriousness of offence in appeal court's view was not given primacy by the judge at first instance, hence the successful appeal.

Ok if you're someone who's not too well off yourself, but it is still not right for you to discriminate against this man and bear him more ill will merely because he is rich.

The bolded part is an absolute untruth. The judge abjectly failed to take into consideration either the gravity of the offence, or the effect on the victim, he further failed to take into account the absolute lack of remorse by the convicted who at all times fought the case and who initially lied to the Gardai.
The fact that this judge has been found to have made improper interference in another case is highly relevant, to argue otherwise is facile.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If he skips he will be the subject of an arrest warrant and eventual extradition.
If the judge had done his job properly the sentence would not have needed reviewing at all.

Benbulnen64

Humphrey

Re flight risk. It is likely that following success of his appeal that the man's passport has already been seized by Gardai.

When you say he at all times fought the case, once again you are not quite correct. He let the complainant's statement in...

When you make commentary on legal matters, you do not seem to get it that a LITTLE knowledge does NOT go a long way!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.