Drunk driver with 485 convictions who killed teen while speeding jailed for 18 months

MarkR

From here.

Father-of-three Lynch was drunk and had no driving license, valid NCT, tax or insurance on his car when he struck the 18 year old who had just completed his Leaving Cert.

I'm not sure what else he could have been doing to get a stiffer sentence, so I guessing this was the maximum allowabe? Ridiculous sentance. Should be going to jail for ten years minimum for killing somone.

Edit: Just realised there's already a thread in AH about this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057698304

Can move / close

GavRedKing

Is the judge serious? Jesus.

Judge Martin Nolan firstly expressed his sincere sympathy to the Patton family on the loss of their son and brother Shane.

He said that although drink was a factor, the real factor in the case was Lynch's speed and how he could not avoid the collision because he was driving at such speed.

Padraig Mor

Copied from AH:

The posters [on AH] trying to in some way blame the dead victim disgust me and I think the DPP has serious questions to answer - why was he only charged with careless driving? If driving at way over the limit, pissed, while banned and with no insurance is not a slam dunk case of dangerous driving - even without the death - what is? The fatality should have meant a manslaughter prosecution. Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell from the article, we only have the scumbag's word that the victim pulled out in front of him and I don't pit much faith in his honesty. I hope the victim's family burnt his letter of 'apology' and I wonder how yer man's legal team can look their families in the eye while defending unreformable scum like this.

blackbox

How does anyone get to have 485 convictions?

That's about 20 a year for each year of adult life. More than one a month - and these are only the incidents he got caught for and where the charges stuck.


.

goz83

blackbox wrote: »

How does anyone get to have 485 convictions?

That's about 20 a year for each year of adult life. More than one a month - and these are only the incidents he got caught for and where the charges stuck.


.

Some people get away with crime after crime after crime and there is no reforming them. They have no interest in contributing to society. If that man (and I use the word loosely) had any remorse, it wouldn't have taken a European arrest warrant to get him back to face the music.

Out of curiosity, I was recently looking back at this case to see if anything had come of it. It didn't take much searching to find the the same name (of the same road) was involved in a number of other criminal activities, one of which was much more serious than the case I highlighted. I won't link any other cases, as there is a possibility that the other cases I connected are just by coincidence.

ABC101

blackbox wrote: »

How does anyone get to have 485 convictions?

That's about 20 a year for each year of adult life.  More than one a month - and these are only the incidents he got caught for and where the charges stuck.


.

Well in fairness it is all about business.
485 convictions = possibly 485 instances of Free Legal Aid.    At around 150 euro / court appointed solicitor per court appearance that means...485 x 150 = 72,750 euro of taxpayer's money transferred to the Legal profession.
Possibly the Legal Profession's better clients, and you would not want to jail one of your better clients for too long.

Atlantic Dawn

It should have been the maximum whatever the maximum is, no point in having laws in place with no punishment to back them up.

The judge is a former Garda "noted for swift, informed decisions"...
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/judge-a-former-garda-noted-for-swift-informed-decisions-1.1765641


He's the judge who jailed the garlic importer for 6 years...

Circuit Court Judge Martin Nolan hit the headlines earlier this year when he jailed a food importer for six years for not paying €1.6m in garlic taxes.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardaturnedjudge-is-used-to-controversy-28820779.html

bear1

That will surely be appealed.
Shows what that judge thought an 18 year old son life is worth.
He should be given life in prison and have his cell plastered with pics of his victim.

honda boi

Be out in 6 months!!!
F'ing sickening!!

Comhrá

What we really need in Ireland is some good old British justice.
We copy so much of the British legal system,we should start copying their sentencing as well:

Football thug who pushed Polish man on to live Tube tracks jailed for 10 years

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/football-thug-who-pushed-polish-man-on-to-live-tube-tracks-jailed-for-10-years-774368.html

None of that "He comes from a good family" nonsense, or "He had a very difficult childhood" rubbish there.

knipex

bear1 wrote: »

That will surely be appealed.
Shows what that judge thought an 18 year old son life is worth.
He should be given life in prison and have his cell plastered with pics of his victim.

He was convicted of careless driving causing death Maximum he could get ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 years

Mooooo

Maximum sentence is 2 years for careless driving so judges hands were tied, how the DPP couldn't bring a dangerous driving charge which is 10yrs I don't know. Joke

Atlantic Dawn

So in Ireland by the current law we have if someone got a truck and deliberately ran down and killed 50 people the maximum sentence they can get is 2 years? Seems crazy but I would believe it.

Zatoichi

tippman1 wrote: »

What we really need in Ireland is some good old British justice.
We copy so much of the British legal system,we should start copying their sentencing as well:

Football thug who pushed Polish man on to live Tube tracks jailed for 10 years

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/football-thug-who-pushed-polish-man-on-to-live-tube-tracks-jailed-for-10-years-774368.html

None of that "He comes from a good family" nonsense, or "He had a very difficult childhood" rubbish there.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/31/lorry-driver-distracted-phone-jailed-10-years-crash-deaths-tomasz-kroker

Wipes out a family and only gets 10 years, which he obviously won't fully serve.

Isambard

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

So in Ireland by the current law we have if someone got a truck and deliberately ran down and killed 50 people the maximum sentence they can get is 2 years? Seems crazy but I would believe it.

that would quite clearly be murder....it's all in that word " deliberately "

knipex

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

So in Ireland by the current law we have if someone got a truck and deliberately ran down and killed 50 people the maximum sentence they can get is 2 years? Seems crazy but I would believe it.

That would be murder.

But the point is that the problem is what he was charged with, not what he was convicted of.

Careless driving causing death has 2 year max.

dangerous driving casing death is a different charge with a higher maximum sentence.

The judges can only convict and set his sentence for the crime for which is was charged..

The DPP decides what a person is charged with..

IrishZeus

Was there any circumstance (legal or otherwise) here that led to the charge of "Careless" rather than "Dangerous" driving? Can't get my head around why he wasn't charged with dangerous driving.

knipex

IrishZeus wrote: »

Was there any circumstance (legal or otherwise) here that led to the charge of "Careless" rather than "Dangerous" driving? Can't get my head around why he wasn't charged with dangerous driving.

No Idea.

I know dangerous driving is notoriously difficult to get a conviction on and as a result rarely charged...

coylemj

DPP would have reviewed all the Garda & witness statements, technical drawings/maps etc. and come to the conclusion that she would not get a conviction from a jury on a charge of dangerous driving causing death.

Bear in mind that a jury in such a case would not know anything about that guy's previous convictions, they would probably give him the benefit of the doubt if there was culpability on the other side and either find him not guilty or downgrade the charge to careless driving in which case the max. he could have got would be six months.

In trials on a charge for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury, juries are suckers for the defence sob story and/or moral pressure like 'if you convict my client of this charge, it carries an automatic disqualification and he will lose his job.' Faced with the prospect of putting a man with a wife and kids out of a job, a lot of juries take the attitude that (1) it won't bring the dead man back (2) your man seems like a decent sort (3) there but for the grace of God etc. and left him off - happens all the time.

It's probably why the legislation was amended to introduce a new offence of careless driving causing death though there is absolutely no logic to it - if you kill someone through negligent driving, how can it be described as anything less than 'dangerous'?

ohnonotgmail

coylemj wrote: »

DPP would have reviewed all the Garda & witness statements, technical drawings/maps etc. and come to the conclusion that she would not get a conviction from a jury on a charge of dangerous driving causing death.

Bear in mind that a jury in such a case would not know anything about that guy's previous convictions, they would probably give him the benefit of the doubt if there was culpability on the other side and either find him not guilty or downgrade the charge to careless driving in which case the max. he could have got would be six months.

In trials on a charge for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury, juries are suckers for the defence sob story and/or moral pressure like 'if you convict my client of this charge, it carries an automatic disqualification and he will lose his job.' Faced with the prospect of putting a man with a wife and kids out of a job, a lot of juries take the attitude that (1) it won't bring the dead man back (2) your man seems like a decent sort (3) there but for the grace of God etc. and left him off - happens all the time.

It's probably why the legislation was amended to introduce a new offence of careless driving causing death though there is absolutely no logic to it - if you kill someone through negligent driving, how can it be described as anything less than 'dangerous'?

If the charge of dangerous driving is downgraded it is downgraded to a S52 so the max sentence is two years.

53.(4) Where, when a person is tried on indictment or summarily for an offence under this section, the jury, or, in the case of a summary trial, the District Court, is of the opinion that he or she had not committed an offence under this section but had committed an offence under section 52, the jury or court may find him or her guilty of an offence under section 52, and he or she may be sentenced accordingly.

coylemj

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If the charge of dangerous driving is downgraded it is downgraded to a S52 so the max sentence is two years.

+1 you're correct, the original S.52 was modified to provide separate penalties for 'ordinary' careless driving and one where there was death or serious injury, clearly to catch the jury downgrades and provide a higher penalty than applied previously when the downgrade put the offence into a relatively minor category.

Ri_Nollaig

coylemj wrote: »

DPP would have reviewed all the Garda & witness statements, technical drawings/maps etc. and come to the conclusion that she would not get a conviction from a jury on a charge of dangerous driving causing death.

Bear in mind that a jury in such a case would not know anything about that guy's previous convictions, they would probably give him the benefit of the doubt if there was culpability on the other side and either find him not guilty or downgrade the charge to careless driving in which case the max. he could have got would be six months.

In trials on a charge for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury, juries are suckers for the defence sob story and/or moral pressure like 'if you convict my client of this charge, it carries an automatic disqualification and he will lose his job.' Faced with the prospect of putting a man with a wife and kids out of a job, a lot of juries take the attitude that (1) it won't bring the dead man back (2) your man seems like a decent sort (3) there but for the grace of God etc. and left him off - happens all the time.

It's probably why the legislation was amended to introduce a new offence of careless driving causing death though there is absolutely no logic to it - if you kill someone through negligent driving, how can it be described as anything less than 'dangerous'?

The jury might not know about the previous convictions but surely his actions on the day; drunk, speeding, no insurance/tax/nct, fled the country afterwards etc. Would that not be enough to be able to confirm the type of character he is?

To be honest, had he been charged and convicted of 'dangerous driving' and was facing 10 years, I would still think thats not enough!

IrishZeus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If the charge of dangerous driving is downgraded it is downgraded to a S52 so the max sentence is two years.

He got 18 months, so surely it would have been better to push for a Dangerous Driving charge and have a possibility of a 10 year sentence given that, if it is downgraded, he still would have faced a maximum penalty of 2 years for Careless Driving?

This would have been the same result as was actually achieved but would at least have given a chance that he would get a longer term?

ohnonotgmail

IrishZeus wrote: »

He got 18 months, so surely it would have been better to push for a Dangerous Driving charge and have a possibility of a 10 year sentence given that, if it is downgraded, he still would have faced a maximum penalty of 2 years for Careless Driving?

This would have been the same result as was actually achieved but would at least have given a chance that he would get a longer term?

Correct. I dont know why the DPP didnt do this.

ultra violet 5

485 convictions, therer is no justice but what you make

knipex

IrishZeus wrote: »

He got 18 months, so surely it would have been better to push for a Dangerous Driving charge and have a possibility of a 10 year sentence given that, if it is downgraded, he still would have faced a maximum penalty of 2 years for Careless Driving?

This would have been the same result as was actually achieved but would at least have given a chance that he would get a longer term?

Correct

My point in highlighting this was that a lot of people were demonising a judge unfairly..

ShadowHearth

knipex wrote: »

Correct

My point in highlighting this was that a lot of people were demonising a judge unfairly..

Maybe at this point judges hands were tight, but surely there has to be something done about this. Your man is clearly taking a piss at this stage.
500 convictions, killed a person, speeding, drunk, no tax/nct/insurance and on top of that he fled country.
I just don't get it how he got away so easy?! Did he at least got ban for like? If I remember right he was already banned and it did not stoped him.
Does judge sentence only for heaviest charge or they all tack up? I just honestly don't get it. Someone up top should at least look at it and do something about changing some laws. At this point it's just madness.

Ri_Nollaig

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Maybe at this point judges hands were tight, but surely there has to be something done about this. Your man is clearly taking a piss at this stage.
500 convictions, killed a person, speeding, drunk, no tax/nct/insurance and on top of that he fled country.
I just don't get it how he got away so easy?! Did he at least got ban for like? If I remember right he was already banned and it did not stoped him.
Does judge sentence only for heaviest charge or they all tack up? I just honestly don't get it. Someone up top should at least look at it and do something about changing some laws. At this point it's just madness.

He will be out in [probably less than] 18 months and back on the road [ban or no ban, clearly doesn't make a difference]. If he causes another death, are the DPP/judge and law makers not at fault for allowing that to happen?