Dublin footballer gets off with no criminal conviction for unprovoked attack

diomed

High five to the "ya know" mafia.

RDM_83 again

seamus wrote: »

Not really.

What's the purpose of a criminal conviction?

Well this is what a criminal conviction is

The outcome of a criminal prosecution which concludes in a judgment that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The juncture of a criminal proceeding during which the question of guilt is ascertained. In a case where the perpetrator has been adjudged guilty and sentenced

He is guilty of an unprovoked assault, how he is punished or rehabilitated has no bearing on this.

In a practical sense it also serves as a permanent record that he committed a violent crime should he re-offend in future. Additionally there is no information beyond his attendance of anger management classes, this is not the case where there has been a report by qualified individuals.
I'm fine with him not going to jail over a once off incident, I'm not fine with his guilt in an unprovoked attack not being recognized.
Also 80 hours community service over 2 years thats nothing.

Henlars67

seamus wrote: »

Where does it say that?

It says that he was asked to do a number of things in lieu of a prison or suspended sentence, and he did all of these things. Therefore he got no sentence.

Tbh, it seems like a perfectly fair outcome in this case. He straight up apologised unreservedly, pleaded guilty and met with the victim who accepted the apology.
He also paid a greater fine than could be issued in law, completed more community service than he had to and attended anger management classes.

It seems to me that there is no need to impose a sentence - the purpose of the justice system is not to exact revenge or to punish blindly, but to seek to ensure (through punishment) that the offender understands the gravity of their actions and pays their debt to society in kind.

There are plenty of people who would be glad to have the opportunity to do voluntary work, and to have the means to pay €5,000 in lieu of a conviction, but not everybody is fortunate enough to have that option.

markc2951

assault causing harm on first offence can lead to jail or at the very least a suspended sentence.an absolute joke

GTDolanator

I know him personally,lives around the corner from me went to school together etc...IMO he's a massive prick and i can tell you he's no angel

Andrew93

judge must have dublin for sam 2015

For Forks Sake

GTDolanator wrote: »

I know him personally,lives around the corner from me went to school together etc...IMO he's a massive prick and i can tell you he's no angle

Stop being so obtuse.

padser

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Well this is what a criminal conviction is

He is guilty of an unprovoked assault, how he is punished or rehabilitated has no bearing on this.

In a practical sense it also serves as a permanent record that he committed a violent crime should he re-offend in future. Additionally there is no information beyond his attendance of anger management classes, this is not the case where there has been a report by qualified individuals.
I'm fine with him not going to jail over a once off incident, I'm not fine with his guilt in an unprovoked attack not being recognized.
Also 80 hours community service over 2 years thats nothing.

This seems fairly spot on. A criminal conviction means you have been found guilty of a crime. He has been. Therefore he should have a criminal conviction.

For a first offence, I'd like to see people get prison but accept that often doesn't happen and he has done community service etc so so be it,

But ending up without a criminal conviction is crazy. If defeats the purpose of having the entire notion of a "criminal conviction"

Whether or not others get it (and I suspect if was much easier for him to get it given his background) is a slightly seperate point, but in any case it's bonkers he has been tried, pleaded guilty, apologised to his victim, completed his sentence, paid a fine but somehow ended up "not convicted".....

Yer Aul One

GTDolanator wrote: »

I know him personally,lives around the corner from me went to school together etc...IMO he's a massive prick and i can tell you he's no angle

Very acute assessment

GTDolanator

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Stop being so obtuse.

Fork You!

Potential-Monke

To be honest, he didn't deserve a custodial sentence, but he should have a record. This offence cannot be brought up again in court should he do the same again. The fact he had no previous convictions, and did do everything above and beyond the court orders, and that the victim was agreeable to it all lead to the outcome, but he still should have got a conviction.

But, i'm more worried about the Judges not handing out custodial sentences to career criminals.

eyescreamcone

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Stop being so obtuse.

Acute hoor?

Jake Rugby Walrus666

I'd say every time Connolly goes out he has eegits coming up to him
in the pub, or someone out to prove themselves, or the local hard man
giving him abuse and flac - is the downside of being a "gaa star"

He made a bad mistake but having to stump up five thousand euro is a tough pill to swallow and seems a proportionate punishment. I doubt he gives a rat's ass whether he was formally convicted or not. It was all over the newspapers anyway.

chrysagon

anyway,, the usual term for crime and assault now is BAIL....you get jail for no tv licence, but break into a house, assault the owners, steal everything, get caught, claim yer a junkie, and u get bail... so u can continue yer spree!!

mosstin

dquinnan wrote: »

Another fine GAA man!

It isn't just the GAA though. It's athletes in general who get shown a remarkable amount of slack when it comes to off the field behaviour. Take Ray Rice from Atlanta Falcons - caught on camera dragging his unconscious partner from an elevator after an 'altercation'.
The initial punishment? A two match ban until a ****storm kicked off and forced the authorities there to look at the case again. Beggars belief what these guys get away with.

mosstin

GTDolanator wrote: »

I know him personally,lives around the corner from me went to school together etc...IMO he's a massive prick and i can tell you he's no angel

I thought you were going to say "He's not that type of guy."

Highflyer13

A joke decision in all seriousness. Something as serious as an unprovoked attack like this deserved a conviction at least. No wonder our legal system isn't respected and is considered farcical by most gardai.

NotASheeple

seamus wrote: »

Where does it say that?

Maybe if you read between the lines you might see it. Now if he was sent do some painting for elderly people or helped Social Services he might be doing some good. But coaching kids for a few hours? No, that's just having a laugh, community service my arse. I guarantee if he smashed your eye socket and got off so lightly, you wouldn't be to happy about it.

end of the road

Warper wrote: »

Another example of a completely shocking decision by an Irish judge.

From RTE
'Dublin footballer Diarmuid Connolly has been spared a possible jail sentence and a criminal conviction for an unprovoked attack on a man in a pub two years ago.

The 26-year-old All-Ireland winner had pleaded guilty to assault causing harm to Anthony Kelly, who suffered a fractured eye-socket at a pub in Phibsboro in Dublin in the early hours of 6 August 2012.

Judge Patrick Clyne said he was dismissing the case because Connolly had done all that had been asked of him through a series of restorative justice measures'



I think the shocking thing about this was he didn't even get a conviction purely because he can kick ball

discusting. he's a violent common criminal who should be locked up.

Rasheed

He's too good looking for jail.

On a serious note, send him down here to play intermediate football with these useless hoors and watch the will to live drain from him. He'd only be happy to see Mountjoy then.

Oops69

At least it came to court, if he was a rugby player with a south side club the case wouldn't have got beyond the dpp.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Paul McGrath
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/463040-paul-mcgrath-court-coach/

Eddie Halvey
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mothers-pain-as-drinkdrive-rugby-star-escapes-jail-term-26535609.html

anncoates

Pity. I assume a conviction for violent assault would have meant a increased under the table "expenses" payment for next season.

Sunnyisland

anncoates wrote: »

Pity. I assume a conviction for violent assault would have meant a increased under the table "expenses" payment for next season.

That's only soccer players :-)

Warper

seamus wrote: »

Where does it say that?

It says that he was asked to do a number of things in lieu of a prison or suspended sentence, and he did all of these things. Therefore he got no sentence.

Tbh, it seems like a perfectly fair outcome in this case. He straight up apologised unreservedly, pleaded guilty and met with the victim who accepted the apology.
He also paid a greater fine than could be issued in law, completed more community service than he had to and attended anger management classes.

It seems to me that there is no need to impose a sentence - the purpose of the justice system is not to exact revenge or to punish blindly, but to seek to ensure (through punishment) that the offender understands the gravity of their actions and pays their debt to society in kind.

What absolute drivel

blackwhite

Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »

I'd say every time Connolly goes out he has eegits coming up to him
in the pub, or someone out to prove themselves, or the local hard man
giving him abuse and flac - is the downside of being a "gaa star"

He made a bad mistake but having to stump up five thousand euro is a tough pill to swallow and seems a proportionate punishment. I doubt he gives a rat's ass whether he was formally convicted or not. It was all over the newspapers anyway.

There's a nice subtle attempt at victim-blaming right there. :rolleyes:

Connolly himself admitted that this was an unprovoked attack.

diomed

blackwhite wrote: »

Connolly himself admitted that this was an unprovoked attack.

"Fair shoulder" is how it is described. :rolleyes:

gormdubhgorm

This happens with people who play professional sports too
See link below about Shane Horgan receiving the probation act for assault on a doorman back in 1999

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/1212/10837-horgan/

But regardless whether an individual is a sportsperson in the public eye or not, if they have no previous convictions and are from a decent background they are less likely to be put in jail. That is the way the system works.

Dionysius2

The truth is that there's a raft of things that can influence what happens in court on a any given day. Judges have hang ups about things and trumpet their attitudes daily on the bench like elephants calling across the Savannah. These biases can range from speed, mobile phones, the whole motoring spectrum, assaults on females, child neglect, drugs, animal cruelty and a myriad of issues. Generally speaking there would be a lot of forbearance toward someone who was engaged in sporting pursuits and involved in some extra curricular activity in the heat of a competitive game. The judges are well aware that if they can strike the right note with a sanction that their own reputations will be enhanced in the quarters where they consider such to be important. In Ireland, the favoured way of imposing a punishment without branding the offender with a conviction is, of course, the court poorbox. And that too, is of dubious standing and no doubt is waiting in the wings for a broadside from the Supreme Court down the line. But then again we, in this country, have always shown a good capacity to find Irish solutions for Irish problems.
And who was it that invented that immortal phrase ?......hhhmmm don't think I'll go there right now.
Now where did I put my travel pass ? 'Bout all that's left at the moment.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

blackwhite wrote: »

There's a nice subtle attempt at victim-blaming right there. :rolleyes:

If by subtle you mean it only exists in your imagination then yes.

Connolly himself admitted that this was an unprovoked attack.

Connolly didn't contest the charge. He didn't claim mitigation by saying there was provocation. As to what actually happened - and I'm bearing in mind there might still be civil legal proceedings in this - if you think connolly walked up to some random bloke and clocked him for no reason at all then you can have a few of your little fcking rolley eyes there for yourself.