Criminal laughs on radio as he recalls assaulting female garda

Scouser

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/criminal-laughs-on-radio-as-he-recalls-assaulting-female-garda-29901804.html

Man laughed as he told he ‘blackened her eyes’ and was jailed

A criminal with 78 previous convictions has mocked the justice system on national radio insisting that prison “isn’t that bad”.

The former prisoner laughed as he told Newstalk’s Pat Kenny how he attacked a female garda, and left her with two black eyes.

Speaking on Newstalk’s The Pat Kenny Show he said, “it’s kind of a habit you know and to tell you the truth prison isn’t that bad.’’

“Well a jail is a jail like, you will always miss your home but it’s not bad,’’ he said.

He explained that the prison system would not deter criminals from reoffending - saying it would not “frighten you away from doing stuff”.

He spent two-and-a-half years in St Patrick’s Institution for young offenders after beating up a female Garda when he was 18-years-old.

“The most serious crime I was convicted of was, when me and a friend, we assaulted two Garda.

“We blackened her (one of the gardai) two eyes,” he recalled before bursting into laughter.

“They were trying to arrest my friend and my friend put up a struggle and I just jumped in and battered them.

“It’s nice to see one of them in pain for a change, he said before admitting he had no regrets about the incident.

The man, who remained anonymous, said he would never feel remorse for what he had done.

The interviewee had been in and out of prison since he was 14 years old.

The 30-year-old recalled having ‘‘around 78 convictions’’ since he was a teenager.

“They’re not serious though, there’s been about 30 that are public order for being drunk around the place.

“I think I have ten for burglary and a couple for robbed cars - you know the usual,” he added.

He said that Portlaoise prison was clean because it has showers in the cells.

The father-of-two said he had “an awful life” explaining that he had been in foster homes since he was a child.

The criminal had been released from Portlaoise prison a month before his interview with Newstalk reporter Francis Fitzgibbon.

A recent study by the CSO on crime reoffending rates among 5,500 offenders found that more than half of prisoners reoffend within three years.

It found that one third of former prisoners reoffend within six months and that young males have the highest recidivism rates.

Consy90

It's a joke of a system. Anyone here the theory put the pensioners in prison and the prisoners in nursing homes. These types of people have to be hit where it hurts cut social welfare, stripped down the ceils off TVs and have them doing hard physical labour in prison.

Wonder if this interview will reach shatter or the people on top.

kub

Lets face it, the legal system in this country benefits from the likes of this individual who constantly commits crime.

By benefit I mean he obviously employs the services of a defence team which I imagine the hard pressed tax payer provides. These legal people are basically private practitioners either self employed or limited companies, which similar to any other venture in this country relies on its' clients to survive.
The great thing for the legal trade is repeat offenders, therefore the more a criminal offends the more work and therefore revenue will be made by the legal community as a result of this.
Now as our Justice Minister is/ was a member of this legal community is he really going to upset his old friends?
Do pig's fly?

PS I wonder would it at all be possible that this country could do a deal with some 3rd world country, so that we could send guys who are repeat offenders to serve their sentences in their prisons instead of our own. Obviously 3rd world countries would have much better prisons, I would love to hear that guy after spending time in one of them.

McCrack

Yes Kub we live in a civil and democratic society. Criminal defence lawyers provide their services to defendants charged with committing offences before a court to people that can't afford to pay them. So the State pays the lawyers for their services. Similarly the State pays the prosecuting Garda to do his job and present the case often claiming overtime and travel allowances.

Sometimes it's not a Garda prosecuting but a solicitor from the DPPs office who is also paid by the State to do their job.

Actually very few people expect to work for nothing.

angelfire9

McCrack wrote: »

Yes Kub we live in a civil and democratic society. Criminal defence lawyers provide their services to defendants charged with committing offences before a court to people that can't afford to pay them. So the State pays the lawyers for their services. Similarly the State pays the prosecuting Garda to do his job and present the case often claiming overtime and travel allowances.

Sometimes it's not a Garda prosecuting but a solicitor from the DPPs office who is also paid by the State to do their job.

Actually very few people expect to work for nothing.

No O/T or travel for courts anymore
Ever heard of Haddington road?
Any prosecutions my OH has been involved in, in 2013 he attended unpaid via Haddington road hours!

kub

McCrack wrote: »

Yes Kub we live in a civil and democratic society. Criminal defence lawyers provide their services to defendants charged with committing offences before a court to people that can't afford to pay them. So the State pays the lawyers for their services. Similarly the State pays the prosecuting Garda to do his job and present the case often claiming overtime and travel allowances.

Sometimes it's not a Garda prosecuting but a solicitor from the DPPs office who is also paid by the State to do their job.

Actually very few people expect to work for nothing.

Well there is no fear that many in the legal community will complain about repeat offender's as they will gladly appreciate the money from elsewhere which pays their bills.
Where exactly did I mention people working for nothing? It seems it is The Gardai that now have to do that, as per the previous poster.

Yes indeed the vast majority of us do indeed live in a social and democratic society, it is such a shame though that this same society has not got the capability to succesfully punish wrong doing.

McCrack

Indeed no fear as much as a doctor would about his sick patients or shopkeeper for his customers or a mechanic for broken down cars etc etc.

Gardai don't work for nothing. They get paid. Likewise criminal defence lawyers don't work for nothing either. They get paid albeit at legal aid rates that have been cut in recent years.

Your last paragraph is for another discussion.

Zambia

And that ladies an gentlemen is the standard class of person police deal with.

God forbid you spray him though, might end up in court.

angelfire9

McCrack wrote: »

Indeed no fear as much as a doctor would about his sick patients or shopkeeper for his customers or a mechanic for broken down cars etc etc.

Gardai don't work for nothing. They get paid. Likewise criminal defence lawyers don't work for nothing either. They get paid albeit at legal aid rates that have been cut in recent years.

Your last paragraph is for another discussion.

Ha ha legal aid is cut?

http://www.clarepeople.com/2013/03/26/tara-godfrey-is-biggest-legal-aid-earner-as-almost-e2000-is-spent-on-legal-aid-per-court-sitting-in-co-clare/

€137k to one solicitor (local to me) in 2012 that's more than the average Garda
:rolleyes:

wnolan1992

I notice the man's claims of Gardai exacting retribution were conveniently omitted from that summation of the story. He might be a detestable scumbag, but his remark about being assaulted by Gardai following this incident is worth looking into too IMO.

kub

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I notice the man's claims of Gardai exacting retribution were conveniently omitted from that summation of the story. He might be a detestable scumbag, but his remark about being assaulted by Gardai following this incident is worth looking into too IMO.

What as if The Gardai are as bad as him is it? I would not believe him.

Zambia

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I notice the man's claims of Gardai exacting retribution were conveniently omitted from that summation of the story. He might be a detestable scumbag, but his remark about being assaulted by Gardai following this incident is worth looking into too IMO.

Why?

McCrack

angelfire9 wrote: »

Ha ha legal aid is cut?

http://www.clarepeople.com/2013/03/26/tara-godfrey-is-biggest-legal-aid-earner-as-almost-e2000-is-spent-on-legal-aid-per-court-sitting-in-co-clare/

€137k to one solicitor (local to me) in 2012 that's more than the average Garda
:rolleyes:

Yes there have been cuts since 2011 on the rates paid by the State to lawyers providing their services as well as cuts to travel and sustenance payable. The rates are fixed by the government and they have been cut in the past three years.

The link you pasted - yes busy and experienced lawyers practising in criminal defence work can earn that kind of money. They also run an office and employ staff that have to be paid.

wnolan1992

Zambia wrote: »

Why?

Because if, like he claimed, Gardai assaulted him after he'd served his time as some form of retribution for the incident, then they would be breaking the law?

Personally, I don't want a police force that has free reign to dole out beatings to whoever they see fit, be they scumbags or not.

Now, he may very well be making the entire thing up, I just find its complete omission from the article a bit strange, that's all.

kub

McCrack wrote: »

Indeed no fear as much as a doctor would about his sick patients or shopkeeper for his customers or a mechanic for broken down cars etc etc.

Gardai don't work for nothing. They get paid. Likewise criminal defence lawyers don't work for nothing either. They get paid albeit at legal aid rates that have been cut in recent years.

Your last paragraph is for another discussion.

Just wondering as you have not at all made any reference to this chap that rang Pat Kenny, do you by any chance have any difficulty with what he said?
Just as you have probably gathered I am not a Garda, but even the reports I have read on that call are making me angry.
I just wish I was passing by when he assaulted that Ban Garda.

angelfire9

McCrack wrote: »

Yes there have been cuts since 2011 on the rates paid by the State to lawyers providing their services as well as cuts to travel and sustenance payable. The rates are fixed by the government and they have been cut in the past three years.

The link you pasted - yes busy and experienced lawyers practising in criminal defence work can earn that kind of money. They also run an office and employ staff that have to be paid.

Tara Godfrey's sole income is from FLA
My heart is not bleeding for her she's better off than most people in Ennis on the back f defending the same clients repeatedly
There should be a limit on the number of times one scrote can get legal aid :mad:

Zambia

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Because if, like he claimed, Gardai assaulted him after he'd served his time as some form of retribution for the incident, then they would be breaking the law?

Personally, I don't want a police force that has free reign to dole out beatings to whoever they see fit, be they scumbags or not.

Now, he may very well be making the entire thing up, I just find its complete omission from the article a bit strange, that's all.

It's a press interview not a report. If he believes he was assaulted he can report it to the ombudsman.

Even if they stuck it in he has to sign up to a statement for something to be done.

Scumbags are all talk

kub

Do defence solicitors have morals? Personally speaking i would feel better in myself earning my living cleaning out sewers rather than defending the likes of this chap. The rats in the sewer have more respect than that.

I agree regarding the FLA, someone should only be able to avail of it once. But then it is legal people who make up the laws for the Dail to vote on so I have a hunch that idea will not go too far.

When the IMF came here I thought that some of this stuff would happen but sadly not, maybe next time.

angelfire9

Everyone can mess up once
I wouldn't even have an issue with one case as a juvenile and one as an adult because when you hit 18 consequences of a conviction have the potential to be serious
But.. Career criminals with 20+ convictions.. No way in hell the state should be paying for their legal aid
No doubt the legal profession will go on about the right to counsel blah bah...
Where are the rights of the victims considered?
Where are the rights of the poor fools who's taxes are paying for the holiday in Portlaoise considered
I have a degree in Law & Accountancy I had an interest in criminal law and could have gotten an apprenticeship but the thought of defending scum changed my career path

kub

angelfire9 wrote: »

I have a degree in Law & Accountancy I had an interest in criminal law and could have gotten an apprenticeship but the thought of defending scum changed my career path

Brilliant, pity there are not more like you. You know Angelfire you will go straight to heaven for that

angelfire9

kub wrote: »

Brilliant, pity there are not more like you. You know Angelfire you will go straight to heaven for that

Doubt it!
:D:D
I probably would have been disowned (father was a cop)
And would be single and childless now if I'd gone the law route (hubby is a cop)

Potential-Monke

There is a solution to the FLA argument - 1 payment per case. As it stands, even for a simple public order charge, there are at least 2 appearances. The initial charge for mention, where the solicitor states he's acting for the defendant, requests a Gary Doyle order and requests a date for hearing. Finally, he requests legal aid, and i've never heard of it being objected to.

Then, you have the hearing date, and most of the time (in my experience) something happens and it's put back to another date. Then there's the third appearance. So that's at least 3 payments for the 1 charge. And i'm pretty sure there are consultation fees in between.

And that's for the District Court. If it's a Circuit Court, and said scummer gets convicted, there's another date set for sentencing. And to include all the dates set for a probation report, etc. It all builds up. And i'd also be pretty sure that even if there are multiple charges from different incidents, it's a pay per charge basis. I'm open to correction on that one.

So, scummer gets charged with a public order offence, the solicitor gets 1 single payment regardless of appearances/consultations. We'd see a lot more guilty pleas because the solicitor knows that they're not going to make any more money out of it. Which is, in my opinion, a deciding factor in the "you'll probably be found guilty but we'll chance our arm" cases.

As for yer man on the radio, does he not realise that the local Gardaí will hear about this and be less than lenient any time they will ever deal with him again?

McCrack

kub wrote: »

Do defence solicitors have morals? Personally speaking i would feel better in myself earning my living cleaning out sewers rather than defending the likes of this chap. The rats in the sewer have more respect than that.

I agree regarding the FLA, someone should only be able to avail of it once. But then it is legal people who make up the laws for the Dail to vote on so I have a hunch that idea will not go too far.

When the IMF came here I thought that some of this stuff would happen but sadly not, maybe next time.

I suppose you do whatever it is you do and get paid and lawyers practising criminal defence will do their jobs and the world goes on.

Re your second paragraph the right to legal aid for accused persons has constitutional considerations as well as judgments from the Supreme Court. The European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights also have a bearing so your misconceived cynicism for "legal people who make up laws for the Dail to vote on" is rubbish.

McCrack

angelfire9 wrote: »

Everyone can mess up once
I wouldn't even have an issue with one case as a juvenile and one as an adult because when you hit 18 consequences of a conviction have the potential to be serious
But.. Career criminals with 20+ convictions.. No way in hell the state should be paying for their legal aid
No doubt the legal profession will go on about the right to counsel blah bah...
Where are the rights of the victims considered?
Where are the rights of the poor fools who's taxes are paying for the holiday in Portlaoise considered
I have a degree in Law & Accountancy I had an interest in criminal law and could have gotten an apprenticeship but the thought of defending scum changed my career path

For somebody who claims to have studied law you display quite a bit of ignorance in your posts regarding the rights of accused and the criminal legal aid process and the role of the victim in the process.

You should also have realised that criminal is just one of many different areas of legal study and practice and that most practising lawyers don't in fact practise it. So instead you decided not to pursue a legal career on the basis that you might end up "defending scum" so you married a cop and had a few kids instead.

And to put all this in perspective the annual legal aid bill is about €50 million and the annual social welfare bill is €20 BILLION.

Expenditure on legal aid is relatively little.

kub

McCrack wrote: »

I suppose you do whatever it is you do and get paid and lawyers practising criminal defence will do their jobs and the world goes on.

Re your second paragraph the right to legal aid for accused persons has constitutional considerations as well as judgments from the Supreme Court. The European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights also have a bearing so your misconceived cynicism for "legal people who make up laws for the Dail to vote on" is rubbish.

I do indeed do what it is i do and have a clear conscience because in my profession an a daily basis i get to encounter the harm which this type of individual do to innocent people.

So would you please be so kind as to inform me, who exactly advises the Government on proposed laws? I mean if it is not legal people, its hardly the bar staff, is it?

riffmongous

Potential-Monke wrote: »

There is a solution to the FLA argument - 1 payment per case. As it stands, even for a simple public order charge, there are at least 2 appearances. The initial charge for mention, where the solicitor states he's acting for the defendant, requests a Gary Doyle order and requests a date for hearing. Finally, he requests legal aid, and i've never heard of it being objected to.

Then, you have the hearing date, and most of the time (in my experience) something happens and it's put back to another date. Then there's the third appearance. So that's at least 3 payments for the 1 charge. And i'm pretty sure there are consultation fees in between.

And that's for the District Court. If it's a Circuit Court, and said scummer gets convicted, there's another date set for sentencing. And to include all the dates set for a probation report, etc. It all builds up. And i'd also be pretty sure that even if there are multiple charges from different incidents, it's a pay per charge basis. I'm open to correction on that one.

So, scummer gets charged with a public order offence, the solicitor gets 1 single payment regardless of appearances/consultations. We'd see a lot more guilty pleas because the solicitor knows that they're not going to make any more money out of it. Which is, in my opinion, a deciding factor in the "you'll probably be found guilty but we'll chance our arm" cases.

As for yer man on the radio, does he not realise that the local Gardaí will hear about this and be less than lenient any time they will ever deal with him again?

That's only a solution to the 'scummer' problem, wont it just screw over anyone who needs FLA and isn't a 'scummer'

kub

McCrack wrote: »

And to put all this in perspective the annual legal aid bill is about €50 million and the annual social welfare bill is €20 BILLION.

Expenditure on legal aid is relatively little.

About € 50 million is relatively little, is it? By any chance did you get todays news regarding the consultant charges that Irish Water have paid, coincidently also €50 million, same amount and a lot of unhappy people. I do not think the general populace of ignoramuses would be too happy to learn that just one section of this countries justice system is costing us €50 million euro.
Anyway I am sure that the vast majority of 'people' who avail/ screw the system are already benefiting from social welfare payments.
Just a pity that the cost of the FLA is not deducted out of their social welfare payments over time.

angelfire9

McCrack wrote: »

For somebody who claims to have studied law you display quite a bit of ignorance in your posts regarding the rights of accused and the criminal legal aid process and the role of the victim in the process.

You should also have realised that criminal is just one of many different areas of legal study and practice and that most practising lawyers don't in fact practise it. So instead you decided not to pursue a legal career on the basis that you might end up "defending scum" so you married a cop and had a few kids instead.

And to put all this in perspective the annual legal aid bill is about €50 million and the annual social welfare bill is €20 BILLION.

Expenditure on legal aid is relatively little.

No, I became an accountant instead
Please do not preach to me about the rights of victims.. They have none.. I know this because I was assaulted in my own home by a scumbag who was convicted under section 3 NFOAP and got a suspended sentence despite almost killing me

The role of the victim is to make a statement, go to court and be torn to shreds and in my case reduced to tears by solicitors paid for by my taxes!

I am aware there are other areas of law, I sat and passed the FE1's
I had zero interest in conveyancing and found family law depressing criminal was where my interest lay but I thankfully have found an area of accountancy where
I have no conflicts of interest

In a country with massive unemployment, where the legal aid bill is 2.5 times the social welfare bill IMHO that's about 30 million too much

McCrack

kub wrote: »

I do indeed do what it is i do and have a clear conscience because in my profession an a daily basis i get to encounter the harm which this type of individual do to innocent people.

So would you please be so kind as to inform me, who exactly advises the Government on proposed laws? I mean if it is not legal people, its hardly the bar staff, is it?

You're getting warm.

To be honest I'm not getting involved educating you on the legislative process and the constitutional and European considerations for drafting and enacting Irish law.

There are courses out there and books you can read for that.

McCrack

kub wrote: »

About € 50 million is relatively little, is it? By any chance did you get todays news regarding the consultant charges that Irish Water have paid, coincidently also €50 million, same amount and a lot of unhappy people. I do not think the general populace of ignoramuses would be too happy to learn that just one section of this countries justice system is costing us €50 million euro.
Anyway I am sure that the vast majority of 'people' who avail/ screw the system are already benefiting from social welfare payments.
Just a pity that the cost of the FLA is not deducted out of their social welfare payments over time.

Grand well that's the price we pay for the benefits of living in a civil and democratic society.

If you're unhappy with that move to Saudi Arabia or somewhere.

Re Irish Water again if you're unhappy with the cost of providing clean drinking water to the population move to Bangladesh perhaps. Lots of free dirty water there in holes.

McCrack

angelfire9 wrote: »

No, I became an accountant instead
Please do not preach to me about the rights of victims.. They have none.. I know this because I was assaulted in my own home by a scumbag who was convicted under section 3 NFOAP and got a suspended sentence despite almost killing me

The role of the victim is to make a statement, go to court and be torn to shreds and in my case reduced to tears by solicitors paid for by my taxes!

I am aware there are other areas of law, I sat and passed the FE1's
I had zero interest in conveyancing and found family law depressing criminal was where my interest lay but I thankfully have found an area of accountancy where
I have no conflicts of interest

In a country with massive unemployment, where the legal aid bill is 2.5 times the social welfare bill IMHO that's about 30 million too much

What? Where are you getting those figures? Are you really an accountant?

I said the legal aid bill is 50 million and the social welfare bill 20 billion.

kub

McCrack wrote: »

You're getting warm.

To be honest I'm not getting involved educating you on the legislative process and the constitutional and European considerations for drafting and enacting Irish law.

There are courses out there and books you can read for that.

Thank you but i won't bother, I simply asked you who was it that advised the Government on various laws. You have failed to answer that.

Eitherway I have no interest whatsoever in any individual or organisation that would assist someone like the individual that rang The Pat Kenny show.

Also i detect your condesending attitude, both here with your offer to 'eduacate me' and your ignoramus remark to a previous poster, I take it so that you are indeed working in the legal trade. It makes perfect sense.

kub

McCrack wrote: »

Grand well that's the price we pay for the benefits of living in a civil and democratic society.

If you're unhappy with that move to Saudi Arabia or somewhere.

Re Irish Water again if you're unhappy with the cost of providing clean drinking water to the population move to Bangladesh perhaps. Lots of free dirty water there in holes.

Bottom line is €50 m is too much to be paying out on scum bags and solicitors with low moral standards.

I have no intention of moving anywhere.

Where i live and for all of my life my drinking water is absolutely perfect as always. Just in case you need a little lesson, it was the IMF that recommended that we pay for water, funny thing is Irish Water will not be altering where my water is supplied from.
I am glad you know so much about Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia though, I wonder do they have a FLA system in those countries?

angelfire9

McCrack wrote: »

What? Where are you getting those figures? Are you really an accountant?

I said the legal aid bill is 50 million and the social welfare bill 20 billion.

I misread your previous post..what's a couple of 0's between friends

I still maintain we spend way too much on legal aid though
Solicitors in Ireland who specialise in FLA get rich off the backs if victims of crime.. This is a fact!
Barristers too, though I grant you, a case requiring a barrister in circuit or high court carries a greater penalty if the accused is convicted, and I do understand that some barristers live on the breadline in the early days so I don't begrudge them quite as much

There should be a cut off point, I know the legal profession will never agree, but as a society we should not be continuing to enable criminality by guaranteeing FLA to habitual offenders
You have a right to a solicitor
Why should you have a right to a free one? Just because you are an unemployed scrote on your tenth/twentieth offence?
Let the proceeds of our crimes pay for it or deduct it from the JSA payment

Legal aid is necessary but what needs to be changed is the system of appearances. Cut out the bollox of appearances for the sake of it. Unnecessary mention dates etc. There seems to be some movement on this already which is good.

We should also change the system of it been given on each new charge when somebody is already before the courts. Just have it per client rather than case.

Soft Falling Rain

I got a distinct smell of BS reading the OP, wouldn't be surprised if he was a plant to illicit the kind of responses that are in this thread. It's not as if a phone in show hasn't done it before like.

kub

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I got a distinct smell of BS reading the OP, wouldn't be surprised if he was a plant to illicit the kind of responses that are in this thread. It's not as if a phone in show hasn't done it before like.

That thought did occur to me, even if it is BS it is based on fact. This stuff really happens.

Soft Falling Rain

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I got a distinct smell of BS reading the OP, wouldn't be surprised if he was a plant to illicit the kind of responses that are in this thread. It's not as if a phone in show hasn't done it before like.

Wasn't a phone in. It was an interview with a prolific offender about the system and the offenders.

Potential-Monke

riffmongous wrote: »

That's only a solution to the 'scummer' problem, wont it just screw over anyone who needs FLA and isn't a 'scummer'

Honestly, no. The normal Joe who gets in trouble is normally respectful of the courts and Gardais time and doesn't acting the bollix, so one appearance is normally more than enough.

As it stands, even with clear cut cases, the solicitor keeps fighting it for only 1 reason as far as i can see - money. More appearances = more money. You see the same solicitors who have paying clients only appearing once for them, because they know they won't get any more from that person.

McCrack

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Honestly, no. The normal Joe who gets in trouble is normally respectful of the courts and Gardais time and doesn't acting the bollix, so one appearance is normally more than enough.

As it stands, even with clear cut cases, the solicitor keeps fighting it for only 1 reason as far as i can see - money. More appearances = more money. You see the same solicitors who have paying clients only appearing once for them, because they know they won't get any more from that person.

Do you have an understanding or experience of the District Court prosecution process? I don't think you do with those comments.

As it stands disclosure of the prosecution file or whats known as a Gary Doyle Order is normally sought at first appearance. The legal representative then needs time to consider it and advise the defendant. A plea is then entered and depending on the plea the matter can be put back for Hearing or for probation or other reports to be prepared.

The above are fair procedures or trial in due course of law. None of the above can be done at one appearance so to suggest one appearance in the courtroom is enough to dispose of a charge or charges is nonsense.

kub

McCrack wrote: »

Do you have an understanding or experience of the District Court prosecution process? I don't think you do with those comments.

As it stands disclosure of the prosecution file or whats known as a Gary Doyle Order is normally sought at first appearance. The legal representative then needs time to consider it and advise the defendant. A plea is then entered and depending on the plea the matter can be put back for Hearing or for probation or other reports to be prepared.

The above are fair procedures or trial in due course of law. None of the above can be done at one appearance so to suggest one appearance in the courtroom is enough to dispose of a charge or charges is nonsense.

I suppose if it was properly organised then things would be different.
But why should you lot consider this when your trade has a vested interest in the current arrangement, let the tax payers money rolling.

Potential-Monke

McCrack wrote: »

Do you have an understanding or experience of the District Court prosecution process? I don't think you do with those comments.

As it stands disclosure of the prosecution file or whats known as a Gary Doyle Order is normally sought at first appearance. The legal representative then needs time to consider it and advise the defendant. A plea is then entered and depending on the plea the matter can be put back for Hearing or for probation or other reports to be prepared.

The above are fair procedures or trial in due course of law. None of the above can be done at one appearance so to suggest one appearance in the courtroom is enough to dispose of a charge or charges is nonsense.

I know too well the process. And i've been there when charge(s) have been dealt with on the for mention day. When someone is paying out of their own pocket they don't want to have to pay more than they need to.