Drunk driver jailed for killing 'good Samaritan' - justice FAIL

plys

This chronic drink-driver finally gets locked up - only after he kills a man with his antics

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0722/716563-drink-driving/

I personally find it staggering that a person might be driving around freely, with THIRTY disqualification orders against their name..

Sleepy

6 1/2 years seems very short for someone who commits vehicular manslaughter while drunk and serving a driving ban.

Scum like Desmond Collopy serve no value to society whatsoever. It's a great shame that it costs more to execute them than to jail them for life.

SEPT 23 1989

His 186 previous convictions include 148 road traffic offences and 30 disqualification orders:rolleyes:

seamus

Driving while banned should carry a minimum custodial sentence and a lifetime ban. It's like someone convicted of firearms offences waving a gun around in public.

It's not a mistake or an error in judgement, it's straight up disregard for the law and needs an appropriate punishment.

kylith

So sad. So, so sad. That poor family.

When you hear of tossers like this with hundreds of convictions that they don't give a toss about; what can you do to stop them short of locking them up for life?

scdublin

"He also pleaded guilty to having no insurance, driving while disqualified and failing to stop his vehicle at the scene of an accident."

Absolute scumbag with no regard for the law from the sounds of things!! Awful that someone innocent has paid the price for his actions.

NachoBusiness

Both my primary and secondary schools were on North St.

Knew some people that knew him and his wife, disgraceful sentence, as were some of his previous ones.

186 previous convictions include 148 road traffic offences and 30 disqualification orders.

Good Christ.

Sleepy

kylith wrote: »

When you hear of tossers like this with hundreds of convictions that they don't give a toss about; what can you do to stop them short of locking them up for life?

Short of it?

Nothing.

ScumLord

How can anyone actually rack up 186 convictions?

Birneybau

It is just fcuking shocking that someone with that amount of convictions could have his freedom and it was taking a life that finally got him locked up!?!

What a fcuking stupid law structure in this country.

Samaris

Ah yikes, that's awful.

His wife's impact statement was just tragic.

The judge sounded like he was thoroughly in sympathy for her, but was bound by restrictions. I hope that's what it was at least, because this guy deserved the book throwing at him. He got off lightly for destroying several lives out of sheer carelessness.

mud

How long before he came forward?

I remember this from last year as his wife was making a dress for a friend

Akrasia

ScumLord wrote: »

How can anyone actually rack up 186 convictions?

Presumably, every time he got arrested, he had been committing multiple offences. You can get loads of convictions from one appearance in court.

suicide_circus

I've said many times, the very first and primary duty of the state is to protect its citizenry. Someone walking around with 186 convictions is the equivalent of a suspect device being found on Grafton Street and the bomb squad doing nothing about it. This person needs to be taken out of circulation. I don't advocate execution or cruel punishment but it is clear that this person has a profound and protracted inability to behave within the accepted boundaries of society. Frankly he needs to be digging ditches until he is too old to do any more harm.

NachoBusiness

Birneybau wrote: »

What a fcuking stupid law structure in this country.

Was google'ing around looking for info on the rapist that got attacked by the vigilante the other night and I kept coming across case after case of men that had got suspended sentences for abusing kids and only a couple of years (with suspensions taken into account) for raping their daughters for many many years, on literately hundreds on different occasions and yet then read how one 70 year old man, clearly not all there, offered two 12 year olds €5 if they'd sleep with him. He was given 5 years for each, to run concurrently and called a "dirty old man' by the judge.

Now, no problem really with him having to serve time, perhaps, but the man is clearly not all there, never made actual contact with either girl and yet he will no doubt serve the same, or even more, than many men who rape their daughters over many years. Plus the fact that the guy in the news at the minute is on our streets seemingly having destroyed a six year old's life beyond repair. Our justice system seems to be so inconsistent that it's bordering on the absurd at this stage.

MadsL

"187 strikes and you are out!" rule.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sleepy wrote: »

6 1/2 years seems very short for someone who commits vehicular manslaughter while drunk and serving a driving ban.

Scum like Desmond Collopy serve no value to society whatsoever. It's a great shame that it costs more to execute them than to jail them for life.

There's no such crime as vehicular manslaughter here. You're watching too many US TV shows. Plus no death penalty and life doesn't mean life ether.

That said it's a disgrace that this kind of sentence gets handed down after a death.

Capt'n Midnight

Recent stats show that about 10% of disqualified drivers get caught again , each year.

Then consider than many don't get caught.

rubberdiddies

Unfortunately we see stories like this everyday and we (myself included) continue to be outraged by the leniency shown to repeat offenders.

Alas despite this going on for years nothing will ever change.

For some reason there is no political will to tighten up the justice system. I personally have no idea why. Surely legislation can be introduced.

After all when the government wanted approval for the sale of aer lingus a few weeks back they were able to clear all dail business with less than a days notice because they had the will to do it.

I can speculate why they won't tighten up sentencing laws but I will never understand why it hasn't been done.

Surely guaranteed minimum prison terms would eventually deter some if not many criminals.

Surely a rule such as 3 convictions and you're not entitled to any more free legal aid would deter most?

I may be looking at this very simplistically but the unlimited access to free legal aid coupled with criminals knowing they won't get much if any jail time means the incentive is always there to reoffend

osarusan

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Surely a rule such as 3 convictions and you're not entitled to any more free legal aid would deter most?

I'm just guessing but I'd imagine the state has an obligation to meet the defendant's right to a fair trial - which would necessitate some kind of legal aid anyway.

JustAThought

osarusan wrote: »

I'm just guessing but I'd imagine the state has an obligation to meet the defendant's right to a fair trial - which would necessitate some kind of legal aid anyway.

Criminal scum laughing at the judicial system - this demonstrates why. They should remove legal aid for those on a third offense. human vermin like this should not be facilitated or tolerated - who in the name of god is managing these judges & wtf is going on that the governments refuse to deal with it. They will change the law overnight for any purpose that suits them - but not to protect their law abiding citizens, or give financial renumeration from assets of criminals. What is going in in this country that this is allowed & human vermin like this facilitated by our courts. Sickening story

osarusan

JustAThought wrote: »

Criminal scum laughing at the judicial system - this demonstrates why. They should remove legal aid for those on a third offense. human vermin like this should not be facilitated or tolerated - who in the name of god is managing these judges & wtf is going on that the governments refuse to deal with it. They will change the law overnight for any purpose that suits them - but not to protect their law abiding citizens, or give financial renumeration from assets of criminals. What is going in in this country that this is allowed & human vermin like this facilitated by our courts. Sickening story

I think it is a constitutional right.

JustAThought

osarusan wrote: »

I think it is a constitutional right.

For your first two but after that no - pay your own way.

Greenmachine

MadsL wrote: »

"187 strikes and you are out!" rule.

Only 187 more, to go. I need to get out more. Or maybe stay IN if word gets out to the masses, they have 187 strikes there could be anarchy. Takes someone low life to get 187 conviction.
Imagine in a lot of case he was tried on only a few sample offences meaning only those ones would be recorded. Not the mention the **** he wasn't caught for.

jimboblep

osarusan wrote: »

I think it is a constitutional right.

constitutions can be changed, but their is a lack of political will to do this as it would turn off a major revenue stream for the "right" people

osarusan

jimboblep wrote: »

constitutions can be changed, but their is a lack of political will to do this as it would turn off a major revenue stream for the "right" people

Article 6 of the EU Convention on Human Rights also I believe.

So it's pretty unlikely to happen, appealing as it sounds to no longer have people with multiple convitions soaking up legal aid money - what government wants to start a referendum on what is effectively removing a defendant's right to a fair trial?

Better to focus on getting judges to sentence properly (and I say that as somebody who does not agree with minimum sentencing laws).

circadian

I'm furious after reading that.

Streetwalker

Im just surprised this sort of stuff is surprising to people. The justice system is a farce.

jimboblep

osarusan wrote: »

Article 6 of the EU Convention on Human Rights also I believe.

So it's pretty unlikely to happen, appealing as it sounds to no longer have people with multiple convitions soaking up legal aid money - what government wants to start a referendum on what is effectively removing a defendant's right to a fair trial?

Better to focus on getting judges to sentence properly (and I say that as somebody who does not agree with minimum sentencing laws).

you dont have to take away the right to a fair trial you would still have the right to representation, if you cant afford it a system could be brought in to garnish your wages or social welfare until you have paid back your cost to the state.
Something needs to be done as a system which allows somone to have a 187 convictions to still walk around is fundamentaly broken

Little CuChulainn

mud wrote: »

How long before he came forward?

I remember this from last year as his wife was making a dress for a friend

He didn't come forward.

Shelflife

We should have a basic human right to go about our business without fear of having our lives ruined by scumbags like this.

How someone can rack up so many convictions and not be behind bars is beyind me.

We are simply too soft on criminality and are afraid to impinge on the human rights of those who have no regard for the rights of anyone else.

By all means give offenders a second chance ,even a third chance but after that the scumbags should be taken out of society and put in a very basic prison with basic facilities where they simply never get out.

Harsh ? Yes but why should scumbags be accommodated to the detriment of law abiding citizens.

Little CuChulainn

Shelflife wrote: »

We should have a basic human right to go about our business without fear of having our lives ruined by scumbags like this.

How someone can rack up so many convictions and not be behind bars is beyind me.

We are simply too soft on criminality and are afraid to impinge on the human rights of those who have no regard for the rights of anyone else.

By all means give offenders a second chance ,even a third chance but after that the scumbags should be taken out of society and put in a very basic prison with basic facilities where they simply never get out.

Harsh ? Yes but why should scumbags be accommodated to the detriment of law abiding citizens.

That kind of criminal history is not unusual in Ballyfermot. If you were to throw everyone from Ballyfermot with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

Sleepy

Lexie Billions Spectator wrote: »

There's no such crime as vehicular manslaughter here. You're watching too many US TV shows. Plus no death penalty and life doesn't mean life ether.

Oh, I know it doesn't appear on the statute books as such, it's just a better description of the actual crime committed.

The death penalty would be great for scum like this that have repeatedly demonstrated that their very existence is damaging to society. Unfortunately, based on American data, it appears to cost more to exterminate such vermin than to lock them up for the rest of their natural lives.

There's a large part of me which thinks we should just arm the victims family with a few hurleys and turn a blind eye to what happens in cases like this. Treat those who believe themselves to be outside the control of the law as exactly that: outlaws. Individuals who are no longer afforded the protection of the law.

RayCon

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If you were to throw everyone from xxxxxx with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

We need to get to a situation were it's impossible for somebody to rack up 50+ convictions (or anywhere near that number)

Shelflife

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That kind of criminal history is not unusual in Ballyfermot. If you were to throw everyone from Ballyfermot with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

Build a bigger camp, similar to an army barracks with basic facilities, its not a hotel they need, big field basic sleeping qtrs, basic hygiene decent security fencing.

whomitconcerns

I know its been posted...but really has to be posted again..

"He also pleaded guilty to having no insurance, driving while disqualified and failing to stop his vehicle at the scene of an accident.
His 186 previous convictions include 148 road traffic offences and 30 disqualification orders."

Its just incomprehensible....6 1/2 years.....so he couldnt drive then anyway..so the driving ban only affects him for 3.5 years...not that he cares if driving whiel disqualified anyway...186 convictions means how many charges? It looks like (from a brief search) that 20% or so of charges lead to convictions..so hes potentially been arrested and charged up to 1000 times! (Obviously not 1000 times....but point remains)

Fr_Dougal

Anyone that kills someone whilst drink-driving should be found guilty of murder.

conorhal

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That kind of criminal history is not unusual in Ballyfermot. If you were to throw everyone from Ballyfermot with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

The Thunderdome would be large enough, well, not initally perhaps, but eventually.....

pickarooney

osarusan wrote: »

Article 6 of the EU Convention on Human Rights also I believe.

So it's pretty unlikely to happen, appealing as it sounds to no longer have people with multiple convitions soaking up legal aid money - what government wants to start a referendum on what is effectively removing a defendant's right to a fair trial?

Better to focus on getting judges to sentence properly (and I say that as somebody who does not agree with minimum sentencing laws).

They should just do like on telly and give them really bad lawyers after the second offence.

mud

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

He didn't come forward.

That's shocking. I remember it was a hit and run but didn't realise that they knew who had done it.

Really awful thing to happen.

Little CuChulainn

mud wrote: »

That's shocking. I remember it was a hit and run but didn't realise that they knew who had done it.

Really awful thing to happen.

The damaged car was spotted in a driveway by two Gardaí. When they went to investigate it he came out and attacked them.

Vic_08

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That kind of criminal history is not unusual in Ballyfermot. If you were to throw everyone from Ballyfermot with 50+ convictions in Wheatfield there would not be enough room.

Then build more prisons. I do not want to pay more tax but if that is what is required to rid us of a huge % of the scum that make life worse for the majority then I have no problem with it.

We are already paying for these people anyway through social welfare, subsidised housing, Garda and court costs on top of the cost to the random people and businesses that these scum perpetrate crimes against.

People deserve second chances for most things but a second chance should be just that. Repeat offenders need to be dealt with properly and the only way I can see is for mandatory sentences.

The sentences for repeat offences should ramp up, doubling seems a reasonable solution so an offender is allowed a chance to reform after the first or even second offence but faces serious time for subsequent criminality. 1 year-2 year-4 year-8 year-16 year-lucky to get out in anything other than a box.

Shelflife

Serial offenders need to be taken out of society, once a person goes to 5 offences then they should simply be locked away forever, Harsh ?? yes but in this particular case the scumbag would be locked away and the father would be still alive.

We are far too soft on criminals, worrying about their rights and their living conditions while they put the fear of god into ordinary law abiding people.

We need to help people to rehabilitate but once that offer to help is thrown back in our faces then they shouldnt be allowed to hurt anyone again.

Why should someone who steals from people and has no intention of changing be consistently be allowed back into society to do the same again and again.

Needs to stop, once they show that they have no regard for society then society should have no regard for them.

It would be simple enough to build a large camp and put them in it, if conditions are so tough that some of them dont make it .... Tough ! you chose to go down this path.

Wont happen though, politicians have no balls