Irish Justice System

T0001

My friends and I have been discussing the Irish Justice System lately, predominantly about Anti-Social behaviour.

It follows an incident recently where 'an alcoholic'[A] attacked a father of 3[F] in our local chipper in front of his wife and children and left him with a scar on his face and physcological trauma. When brought to the District Court, A was given a 2 Year Civil Order and was required to attend an alcoholics group and 2 councillor sessions(free of charge) for his actions.
F then sued A in the Small Claims court for €1865. This was to cover hospital bills of €200, Medication and GP Consultation €315. His children also required councilling, I think 3 sessions each, totalling €1125. Also €220 legal fees. He was denied this because [a] He hiimself was fined €2000 14 years ago for fighting with someone outside a nightclub (he was a bouncer so ya...) and they felt he may of provoked the attacker, the court believed the councilling sessions were unnecessary and legal bills are at his own expense.

Personally I have no grudge against the legal system on the part that his claim was dismissed. But I do have a problem that the attacker got off without any fine, or any serious consequences. Firstly I thought A was not allowed consume alcohol in public for two years, but he can, and the civil order is that he cannot enter the premises of a 'food establishment' while over the limit.
And, F now has a scar running from his forehead to his jaw, which he has been told will not clear up completely. His kids witnessed their father, the man who to them was the greatest in the world, become submissive to a drunken stranger. And he himself has to live with that memory.

The main points of our discussion were:
a) Sanctions not serious enough for anti-social offenders.
b) Benefits prisoners receive far exceeds those of the innocent public.
c) Courts do not take into consideration the long-term consequences when giving rulings

Feel free to discuss any, if not all, of the main points.

PS: If this is in the wrong thread or has some other fault, I apologise beforehand.

Claw Hammer

T0001 wrote: »

My friends and I have been discussing the Irish Justice System lately, predominantly about Anti-Social behaviour.

It follows an incident recently where 'an alcoholic'[A] attacked a father of 3[F] in our local chipper in front of his wife and children and left him with a scar on his face and physcological trauma. When brought to the District Court, A was given a 2 Year Civil Order and was required to attend an alcoholics group and 2 councillor sessions(free of charge) for his actions.
F then sued A in the Small Claims court for €1865. This was to cover hospital bills of €200, Medication and GP Consultation €315. His children also required councilling, I think 3 sessions each, totalling €1125. Also €220 legal fees. He was denied this because [a] He hiimself was fined €2000 14 years ago for fighting with someone outside a nightclub (he was a bouncer so ya...) and they felt he may of provoked the attacker, the court believed the councilling sessions were unnecessary and legal bills are at his own expense.

Personally I have no grudge against the legal system on the part that his claim was dismissed. But I do have a problem that the attacker got off without any fine, or any serious consequences. Firstly I thought A was not allowed consume alcohol in public for two years, but he can, and the civil order is that he cannot enter the premises of a 'food establishment' while over the limit.
And, F now has a scar running from his forehead to his jaw, which he has been told will not clear up completely. His kids witnessed their father, the man who to them was the greatest in the world, become submissive to a drunken stranger. And he himself has to live with that memory.

The main points of our discussion were:
a) Sanctions not serious enough for anti-social offenders.
b) Benefits prisoners receive far exceeds those of the innocent public.
c) Courts do not take into consideration the long-term consequences when giving rulings

Feel free to discuss any, if not all, of the main points.

PS: If this is in the wrong thread or has some other fault, I apologise beforehand.

That makes no sense. The Small Claims Court does not deal with personal injury claims. Why did he not issue a High Court writ for assault?

T0001

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That makes no sense. The Small Claims Court does not deal with personal injury claims. Why did he not issue a High Court writ for assault?

Yes I agree. However I am not him or his solicitor so I cannot give you a definite answer.

sopretty

Never heard of a court taking into account a claimant's previous convictions! Maybe they do!

It's a bit like a claimant seeking damages for medical expenses after a car crash and a court saying 'Hey Mister - feic off - sure didn't you crash into yer wan there 3 years ago and she got a payout and you got a fine for that - so feic off with yerself now'.

johnnyskeleton

With the caveat that it is always necessary in such circumstances to seek professional legal advice:

It does sound like two judges clearly felt that A was more sinned against than sinning, and that F while technically correct was actually the aggressor.

If you were pointing to a systemic wrong it would be one thing, but did you ever stop to think that you have only heard your friends side of the story and that not one but two independent and impartial arbiters found that his side is not the the truth?

Bepolite

T0001 wrote: »

My friends and I have been discussing the Irish Justice System lately, predominantly about Anti-Social behaviour.

Sounds very civilized. I've visions of tea served on good china and a man called Winston, or perhaps Finton. This makes a nice change from my discussions that generally involve a dive of bar and a drunken anecdote about Denning and Cricket balls.

T0001 wrote: »

It follows an incident recently where 'an alcoholic'[A] attacked a father of 3[F] in our local chipper in front of his wife and children and left him with a scar on his face and physcological trauma. When brought to the District Court, A was given a 2 Year Civil Order and was required to attend an alcoholics group and 2 councillor sessions(free of charge) for his actions.

Seems reasonable enough. What do you think should have happened? Would locking him up have resulted in him not doing it again? If we look at incapacity (locking him up) how long can we reasonably do this for the protection of the public? Given the cost of imprisoning someone is locking up everyone who is the slightest danger to the public possible?

T0001 wrote: »

F then sued A in the Small Claims court for €1865. This was to cover hospital bills of €200, Medication and GP Consultation €315. His children also required councilling, I think 3 sessions each, totalling €1125. Also €220 legal fees. He was denied this because [a] He hiimself was fined €2000 14 years ago for fighting with someone outside a nightclub (he was a bouncer so ya...) and they felt he may of provoked the attacker, the court believed the councilling sessions were unnecessary and legal bills are at his own expense.

You need to bear in mind the differing standards of proof. The victim was convicted, beyond a reasonable doubt of assault himself. In the SmCC (which is also the DC but in it's civil capacity) evidence was introduced (including this) which meant that on the balance of probabilities the victim provoked the attack. Again while one may not agree, we've not got all the facts but it seems reasonable to me.

T0001 wrote: »

Personally I have no grudge against the legal system on the part that his claim was dismissed. But I do have a problem that the attacker got off without any fine, or any serious consequences. Firstly I thought A was not allowed consume alcohol in public for two years, but he can, and the civil order is that he cannot enter the premises of a 'food establishment' while over the limit.
And, F now has a scar running from his forehead to his jaw, which he has been told will not clear up completely. His kids witnessed their father, the man who to them was the greatest in the world, become submissive to a drunken stranger. And he himself has to live with that memory.

That's rather a lot of info and seems more along the lines of conjecture. Some of this post seems like a hypothetical (small claims not making sense) while this seems like you were the victim OP. Now I'm not having a go on that basis, I'm simply stating the bias.

T0001 wrote: »

The main points of our discussion were:
a) Sanctions not serious enough for anti-social offenders.
b) Benefits prisoners receive far exceeds those of the innocent public.
c) Courts do not take into consideration the long-term consequences when giving rulings

a) This isn't really anti-social behaviour it's an assault. For more minor anti-social behaviour we simply don't have the resources to deal with it. It's standard fare these days of teachers are there to bring up kids and the guards are there to watch them when their not at school, woe betide either that actually tries to discipline them.

The next part is the irrational fear that everyone is armed with an AK-47. I live in a relatively rough part of Dublin and I challenge anti-social behaviour in my area, now to be fair I'm 6'2" tall 17st. I'm not advocating vigilantism but a bit of community spirit needs to reassert itself.

b) Visit Mountjoy.

c) They do but they have to take into account a number of other factors including will imprisoning the offender be of a net benefit to society given the cost. What you're looking at IMHO is retribution. There is an element of that we just don't go in for it as much as the yanks, thankfully, as look where that's got them.

T0001 wrote: »

Feel free to discuss any, if not all, of the main points.

PS: If this is in the wrong thread or has some other fault, I apologise beforehand.

Delighted too OP. Decent topic start thanks.