Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

Del.Monte

Still don't like her but she was spot-on in regard to child abuse.

ThisRegard

Roger_007 wrote: »

Monologue? It was more like a sermon. She gave the judge in the Humphries case a right lambasting as well as Eamon Dunphy for his comments.
She also 'ordered' the DPP to appeal the leniency of the sentence.
Maybe, in future such cases, judges could consult Ciara before passing sentence?

Some people evidently will look to be offended or find fault with everything, even something as sound as what she spoke about.

meeeeh

Roger_007 wrote: »

Monologue? It was more like a sermon. She gave the judge in the Humphries case a right lambasting as well as Eamon Dunphy for his comments.
She also 'ordered' the DPP to appeal the leniency of the sentence.
Maybe, in future such cases, judges could consult Ciara before passing sentence?

I think she has every right to an opinion. I'm well aware that judges don't pull the number out of a hat and I know of similar case where the judgement was even more lenient but it didn't involve public person. Still I think there is something wrong in a society that rates repetitive abuse of children 3 times less seriously than customs scam (garlic importer). The outrage especially on social media can be a bit over the top but the whole thing is dragging since 2011 and I'm sure those six years were not pleasant for victim. After all this 2 years just seems grossly unfair and pointless. I think her handling of the matter was perfectly fine.

kunst nugget

Roger_007 wrote: »

Monologue? It was more like a sermon. She gave the judge in the Humphries case a right lambasting as well as Eamon Dunphy for his comments.
She also 'ordered' the DPP to appeal the leniency of the sentence.
Maybe, in future such cases, judges could consult Ciara before passing sentence?

I want the DPP to appeal the leniency of the sentence as well - it was a joke of a sentence. And Dunphy's comments were an absolute farce as well…

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Still I think there is something wrong in a society that rates repetitive abuse of children 3 times less seriously than customs scam (garlic importer).

The person who committed that crime (a 1.6 milliion euro tax fraud!) was sentenced to two years on appeal.

Part of the reason for the 2.5 year sentence in Humphries' case is due to the fact that the Court must take into account the maximum sentence (five or ten years for defilement, depending on the circumstances). The harshest sentence must be reserved for the very worst possible circumstances with no mitigating factors, otherwise an appeal court will simply reduce the sentence.

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

meeeeh

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The person who committed that crime (a 1.6 milliion euro tax fraud!) was sentenced to two years on appeal.

Part of the reason for the 2.5 year sentence in Humphries' case is due to the fact that the Court must take into account the maximum sentence (five or ten years for defilement, depending on the circumstances). The harshest sentence must be reserved for the very worst possible circumstances with no mitigating factors, otherwise an appeal court will simply reduce the sentence.

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

Yes but do the sentences have to be concurrent? He was not found guilty of only one offence. I know that tax fraud was reduced on appeal in the same way as this one will be probably appealed.

kunst nugget

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

The constraints of sentencing notwithstanding, she didn't exactly cover herself in glory with her 'It would be difficult not to have sympathy for him' comment.

ThisRegard

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

The judge is not getting too much blame. She said it was hard not to feel sorry for Humphries, took into account his fall from grace as if that somehow mitigated against a higher sentence, and took into account the 2 character witnesses when deciding upon the sentence.

She had the maximum sentence (relatively short given the offence) to work with, could have applied it or close to it, and if there was issues there let Humphries and his legal team decide if they were going to appeal it.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes but do the sentences have to be concurrent?

I believe so... the two convictions arose from the one 'criminal transaction', during the same time period. Both crimes (exploitation and defilement) were closely connected. The principle behind this is that a person shouldn't be punished multiple times for variations on the same criminal behaviour.

If I steal a bike, for example, there may be three or four potential criminal charges available to prosecute me, even if they all capture the same basic crime, individually. So you could get some very anomalous results, with long sentences for crimes that happen to overlap with lots of criminal statutes.

I'm not saying that I agree with this approach; perhaps the judge doesn't even agree with it. But it is, as far as I know, a principle that has been laid down by the higher courts in this country.

ThisRegard

ThisRegard wrote: »

She had the maximum sentence (relatively short given the offence) to work with, could have applied it or close to it, and if there was issues there let Humphries and his legal team decide if they were going to appeal it.

Sorry, I've just seen this and your previous post. It's probably something that could be answered in better detail Legal Discussion, but a judge can't just go abusing the legal system (much less, giving false hope to a victim) by playing games with the Court of Appeal, when everyone knows a sentence cannot stand.

The answer to more severe sentences upon conviction of sexual crimes lies with the Oireachtas. It is their prerogative to extend the maximum sentences, and therefore to provide the courts with more capacity to proportionately increase the terms of imprisonment, throughout the spectrum.

ThisRegard

Probably best suited for legal discussion alright. But I don't think applying a sentence at or near the maximum possible is abusing the legal system. They are part of the legal system, and they apply the law within the parameters they're permitted, such as maximum sentences for offences. They shouldn't have (and I know some judges, rightly or wrongly, have referred to this in the past) one eye on the appeals court while doing so.

BarryD2

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The person who committed that crime (a 1.6 milliion euro tax fraud!) was sentenced to two years on appeal.

Part of the reason for the 2.5 year sentence in Humphries' case is due to the fact that the Court must take into account the maximum sentence (five or ten years for defilement, depending on the circumstances). The harshest sentence must be reserved for the very worst possible circumstances with no mitigating factors, otherwise an appeal court will simply reduce the sentence.

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

What about our esteemed TD, Mick Wallace? Didn't he defraud the state of €2 million VAT? How many years is Mick getting in the Joy?

ThisRegard

ThisRegard wrote: »

Probably best suited for legal discussion alright. But I don't think applying a sentence at or near the maximum possible is abusing the legal system. They are part of the legal system, and they apply the law within the parameters they're permitted, such as maximum sentences for offences.

But then the question would arise, what about some hypothetical offender in the same position of Tom Humphries who committed the same acts, over a longer period, with a younger girl, perhaps used violence, expressed no remorse, and put his victim through the intimidating experience of a criminal trial? Surely they couldn't both be deserving of identical punishment?

I don't think justice would be served by giving each offender an identical, maximum sentence. Sentences must be imposed relative to the gravity of the offending behaviour, taking into account any mitigating circumtances. Otherwise, if you'll forgive the crass expression, one might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

Anyway, to bring this back to Ciara Kelly's comments, I found myself agreeing with her approach, but I really think the responsibility lies with the Oireachtas, and not with the courts, on this occasion.

BarryD2 wrote: »

What about our esteemed TD, Mick Wallace? Didn't he defraud the state of €2 million VAT? How many years is Mick getting in the Joy?

I don't know Barry, as far as I know he made a settlement with Revenue. I don't think it has any relevance to Ciara Kelly's comments, nor for that matter, does the ubiquitous 'garlic man'/ tax cheat.

Sleeper12

ThisRegard wrote:

She had a pretty good and strong opening monologue today.

Her monologue reminded me Gerry Ryans type of monologue when he was worked up about something.

I thought she was brilliant, was talking a little fast maybe but she handled it the topic very well. I felt she rush the speakers a little. She was able to get you to get into the victims shoes.

I shudder to think how George Hook would covers such a sensitive issue

Sleeper12

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

I don't think the judge is get to much blame. I'm not one demanding a death sentence or even a life sentence but she got it wrong with 2.5 years & I think this will be shown when the sentence is appealed

Grolschevik

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I shudder to think how George Hook would covers such a sensitive issue

Possibly something like this: "But where's the personal responsibility in replying to his texts and not reporting them?"

meeeeh

That's low and I'm not sure this thread is about G Hook. But if we want to go there I think she made very good point about Irish Times article which was an eulogy to his journalistic achievements with a by the way mention of his indiscretions. A slight whiff of double standards there.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

That's low and I'm not sure this thread is about G Hook. But if we want to go there...

We don't.

Ol' Donie

I was a bit concerned that yesterday's intro monologue (not that I disagree with a word she said in it) might mean a soapbox at the start of the show everyday.

Not so, no sign of it today.

So far, so good with this show.

sligojoek

Just sh1te talk to start off today

kunst nugget

Ol' Donie wrote: »

I was a bit concerned that yesterday's intro monologue (not that I disagree with a word she said in it) might mean a soapbox at the start of the show everyday.

Not so, no sign of it today.

So far, so good with this show.

The opinions of Joe Soap is a bit too Liveline for myself. Along with sermonising about alcohol… It's like an awful hybrid of D'Arcy and Duffy.

elperello

Prof. Murray a lobbyist complaining about other lobbyists.

Frank is salivating at the thought of his future gig on the international medical conference circuit - "MUP in Ireland - how I saved the Paddies from themselves."

ButtersSuki

kunst nugget wrote: »

The opinions of Joe Soap is a bit too Liveline for myself. Along with sermonising about alcohol… It's like an awful hybrid of D'Arcy and Duffy.

Now there's a review!

They may even use that as the tag line for the show.....

pconn062

kunst nugget wrote: »

The opinions of Joe Soap is a bit too Liveline for myself. Along with sermonising about alcohol… It's like an awful hybrid of D'Arcy and Duffy.

+1

The liveline effect is going to put me off listening.

Today with the alcohol bill lobbyist Prof. Murray, at least he has qualifications to give a knowledgeable opinion on the topic (even if he is biased and you disagree to him), but then they switch to "Greg from Finglas" to give his ranting opinion.

It's a shame as there is literally nothing to listen to between 12-1pm. Back to Lyric lite it is.

quintana76

She will have Ivana Back commenting on the impeachment of the UCD students Union president. I expect Ivana to deplore a witch hunt against a person with unorthodox views. Not!
I hope I am wrong.

Sleeper12

I thought the impeachment was handled well. Their coverage gave all more balanced view than Patrick Kenny was able to get.

Again I thought she covered the rape /pedophile topic very much today

ballsymchugh

first time really listening to the show now. She's asking what kind of vetting can be done other than Garda vetting to prevent potential child abuse.

it's fairly obvious that nothing can be done. unfortunately as it is, having a question on a form with 'are you a paedophile?' is hardly going to work. if you have a process where someone who had an accusation made against them held on record, then it just takes one dodgy fckr to make an accusation to destroy them.

Sleeper12

ballsymchugh wrote: »

first time really listening to the show now. She's asking what kind of vetting can be done other than Garda vetting to prevent potential child abuse.

it's fairly obvious that nothing can be done. unfortunately as it is, having a question on a form with 'are you a paedophile?' is hardly going to work. if you have a process where someone who had an accusation made against them held on record, then it just takes one dodgy fckr to make an accusation to destroy them.

Someone texted in suggesting the same thing. Under Irish law you are innocent until proven otherwise. I would hazard a guess that it would be illegal for the Gardai to mention any accusations. Again I'd hazard a guess that they would give an off the record call telling of something that might be credible but not enough evidence in court.

The problem is pedophiles without a conviction are almost impossible to find. Even when they are offending they can get away with it for years till the victim is older. Tom Humphries could still be offending possibly with several victims if it wasn't by the grace of god or whoever you pray to that his daughter found his phone. Even after that it wouldn't be uncommon for the predator to convince his wife that he's a change man & they don't report it to the Gardai. His family are true heros in this & they must be suffering too.

ghostdancer

quintana76 wrote: »

She will have Ivana Back commenting on the impeachment of the UCD students Union president. I expect Ivana to deplore a witch hunt against a person with unorthodox views. Not!
I hope I am wrong.

well considering the SU president was impeached for breaking promises, making false claims about legal advice, and misuse of student union money, I wouldn't be expecting Ivana Bacik to discuss that either.
Ascough was elected in March and in office all the time her personal views were well-known.
if she hadn't used SU money to break her election promises, and seemingly lied about legal advice to do so, she'd still be there.

suicide_circus

ghostdancer wrote: »

well considering the SU president was impeached for breaking promises, making false claims about legal advice, and misuse of student union money, I wouldn't be expecting Ivana Bacik to discuss that either.
Ascough was elected in March and in office all the time her personal views were well-known.
if she hadn't used SU money to break her election promises, and seemingly lied about legal advice to do so, she'd still be there.

And SUs are usually bastions of financial probity......