Too harsh by the judge?

lifeandtimes

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-blamed-4800-brown-thomas-splurge-on-card-thieves-36448831.html

A woman lost her purse but somehow spent 4800 quid in brown Thomas. Later claimed her credit card was stolen and tried to defraud them

She was caught and paid all the money back prior to court, she had no convictions at the time but did receive one on paddys day after the bt issue.

She is jailed for 6 months.

Major criminals get suspended sentences for much more.

Judge didn't even give her a chance to speak according to the article.

Too harsh in my opinion seeing as she paid the money back, didn't actually have any convictions and was cooperative with the guards

Owryan

lifeandtimes wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-blamed-4800-brown-thomas-splurge-on-card-thieves-36448831.html

A woman lost her purse but somehow spent 4800 quid in brown Thomas. Later claimed her credit card was stolen and tried to defraud them

She was caught and paid all the money back prior to court, she had no convictions at the time but did receive one on paddys day after the bt issue.

She is jailed for 6 months.

Major criminals get suspended sentences for much more.

Judge didn't even give her a chance to speak according to the article.

Too harsh in my opinion seeing as she paid the money back, didn't actually have any convictions and was cooperative with the guards

Said she had only been convicted of another offence a week earlier and had pleaded mitigation and it was a once off. From reading it it appeared she was in front of the same judge on both occasions.

She only repaid the store because she was caught imo.

lifeandtimes

Owryan wrote: »

Said she had only been convicted of another offence a week earlier and had pleaded mitigation and it was a once off. From reading it it appeared she was in front of the same judge on both occasions.

She only repaid the store because she was caught imo.

I'm not defending her actions but to be fair she showed remorse, cooperated, paid everything back before court and still got jailed.

There are hardened criminals who have done worse and got a lesser judgement.

I don't know I just think it was harsh for technically her first offence

Avatar MIA

lifeandtimes wrote: »

I'm not defending her actions but to be fair she showed remorse, cooperated, paid everything back before court and still got jailed.

There are hardened criminals who have done worse and got a lesser judgement.

I don't know I just think it was harsh for technically her first offence

What do you mean technically, she pleaded guilty to carrying out the offence?

And what does 'showing remorse' mean'?

She tried to steal €4,800 a week or so after being in front of the judge previously.

Samuel T. Cogley

If you look at it logically a hardened criminal will see this as the cost of doing business. You or I would see it as a massive wake up call. Good on the Judge IMHO. I would have had a different opinion prior to the Spent Convictions legislation but it's in place now.

coylemj

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Judge didn't even give her a chance to speak according to the article.

The judge had already convicted her and imposed the sentence. If he had written his decision on the charge sheet then it cannot be changed by him as to do so (e.g. in response to her tearful plea for mercy) would involve him hearing an appeal against his own decision which he is is not allowed to do. That is why he refused to listen to her, the case in his court was finished.

And he threw the book at her because her plea of mitigation in the earlier case included a claim that she was in Dublin visiting sick relatives, a claim which was demonstrated to be false. So her sympathy account was showing a balance of less than zero.

Let's call a spade a spade here - this woman wasn't stealing a pound of mince from Tesco to feed her starving kids, she is probably a professional criminal and most likely stealing luxury goods to order, she deserved jail.

vicwatson

Garlic man !

Atlantic Dawn

Her problem was her defence lacked a violin story, if she said she was addicted to Juicy Couture tracksuits because they made her hole look nice at the gym she might have gotten away with it. The ordinary hard working person without an illness/addiction story is generally penalised to the max.

pablo128

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Her problem was her defence lacked a violin story, if she said she was addicted to Juicy Couture tracksuits because they made her hole look nice at the gym she might have gotten away with it. The ordinary hard working person without an illness/addiction story is generally penalised to the max.

Oh she did have a sob story. She said she was over visiting sick relatives and lost her purse. The prosecution found out she was lying.

Good enough for her.

fritzelly

Hooray for a judge to actually convict and imprison someone for committing a crime

Or was it because she was a tourist and the bad childhood racket wouldn't stand up in court?

Final Approach

Not too harsh at all in my opinion. If hardened criminals are receiving lesser sentences, then the leniency in those cases is where the problem is if you ask me, not the other way around. This country is a serious soft touch for criminality as a consequence of our over lenient judges when handing down sentences. Our criminals are literally giving the justice system the two fingers. It is both frustrating and depressing. Ireland could seriously do with pulling its socks up in this regard. Well done to the Judge in this case I say!

Robbo

vicwatson wrote: »

Garlic man !

The gold standard for Boards threads on criminal sentencing.

Who here amongst us hasn't accidentally executed a million Euro tax scam over a prolonged period of time?

kub

Final Approach wrote:

Not too harsh at all in my opinion. If hardened criminals are receiving lesser sentences, then the leniency in those cases is where the problem is if you ask me, not the other way around. This country is a serious soft touch for criminality as a consequence of our over lenient judges when handing down sentences. Our criminals are literally giving the justice system the two fingers. It is both frustrating and depressing. Ireland could seriously do with pulling its socks up in this regard. Well done to the Judge in this case I say!

There are huge vested interests in the legal business, I am convinced of it at this stage.
People here wonder how hardened criminals get lighter sentences, well it is simple really, I am sure the majority of them rely on free legal aid, so the tax payer looks after their legal costs and defence.
Best all round if these criminals do not spend too long in prison as they will not be on the streets doing what they do best and therefore not needing the services of the legal business at the tax payers expense.
Now well done to that judge in this case but nothing is going to change. We will see people like this lady and the garlic man getting proper sentences but unfortunately I cannot see it being the case for the hardened criminals.

coylemj

kub wrote: »

There are huge vested interests in the legal business, I am convinced of it at this stage.
People here wonder how hardened criminals get lighter sentences, well it is simple really, I am sure the majority of them rely on free legal aid, so the tax payer looks after their legal costs and defence.
Best all round if these criminals do not spend too long in prison as they will not be on the streets doing what they do best and therefore not needing the services of the legal business at the tax payers expense.

It doesn't benefit the judge in any way to hand down lighter sentences. If anything, if would make his job easier if he gave longer sentences, then there would be less churn (repeat business) during each sitting and he could get to the golf course earlier.

But what you perceive as lenient sentences may have more to do with the fact that the jails are full.

tayto lover

Robbo wrote: »

The gold standard for Boards threads on criminal sentencing.

Who here amongst us hasn't accidentally executed a million Euro tax scam over a prolonged period of time?

In fairness Garlic Man probably did deserve a sentence BUT so did others for what was seen as worse yet did not receive any sort of sentence. like the rapist in Griffith Ave who paid out money to his victim and escaped a prison sentence and not a single Banker jailed for fraud because of "poor" investigations.
The Judge's comment on Garlic Man =

Describing Mr Begley, with an address at Woodlock, Redgap, Rathcoole, as a “success story” and an “asset” to the country, Judge Nolan said: “It gives me no joy at all to jail a decent man.”

kub

coylemj wrote:

But what you perceive as lenient sentences may have more to do with the fact that the jails are full.

Perhaps it is time to consider sending our prisoners abroad to South America to some 3rd world countries where they could experience some real punishment, I have to wonder will this stop repeat offenders.

lifeandtimes

The problem I feel is there doesn't seem to be any consistency between judges and the sentences handed down. By all means if 6 months is the norm for this type of crime them let her have it but as was said earlier rapists who show remorse, manslaughter charges have at some time or another given ssuspended sentences etc

lifeandtimes

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-several-drivers-avoided-jail-after-being-convicted-of-causing-death-36460558.html

a motorist pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death while being twice the legal blood alcohol limit.
The motorist received a three-year suspended sentence and a 10-year driving ban. The judge took into account the driver's guilty plea, his previous good character and the attitude of the victim's family, which displayed "Christian charity" towards the accused.

In a further case a driver who lost control of her car, mounting a footpath and killing a young child, received a €500 fine and a three-year disqualification from driving. The judge took into account an early plea of guilt, the fact the driver was not speeding and that she was very distressed and remorseful. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence on the basis of undue leniency, but failed to have it varied by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

wow some of these are actually shocking but just confirms my point of there being conistancy with sentencing

Owryan

One of the issues is that every case will be unique and have its own set of circumstances.

An early guilty plea, showing genuine remorse, how the victim impact statement is delivered, the nature of the crime are all considered in the final sentence. So it would be extremely difficult to have a level of consistency. That's why I'm wouldn't be in favour of mandatory sentences in all cases.

Whereas the woman caught stealing and then claiming her card had been stole had already been up in front of the judge and had played the "woe is me and my circumstances" card so the next time she appeared the judge was not going to go easy on her.

Fwiw I'm not anyway an expert in this stuff.

machiavellianme

No such thing as too harsh a sentence from the Irish judicial system.

Samuel T. Cogley

There shouldn't be any consistency in sentencing. Each case should be considered on it's own merits.

NUTLEY BOY

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

There shouldn't be any consistency in sentencing. Each case should be considered on it's own merits.

Agreed on the matter of individual case merits.

However, can you not still expect some measure of consistency within general parameters to avoid disparities for similar offences ? Is that not the type of issue that an appeal court would consider ?

Raisins

kub wrote: »

Perhaps it is time to consider sending our prisoners abroad to South America to some 3rd world countries where they could experience some real punishment, I have to wonder will this stop repeat offenders.

Great idea, I suppose we could also ask those countries what their crime rates are like. Then when they tell us and we realise they're much higher than ours we might sit down and think. We might read the studies that show there's no relationship between very harsh sentencing and lower rates of crime.

NUTLEY BOY

Raisins wrote: »

Great idea, I suppose we could also ask those countries what their crime rates are like. Then when they tell us and we realise they're much higher than ours we might sit down and think. We might read the studies that show there's no relationship between very harsh sentencing and lower rates of crime.

As coylemj says, the prisons are full.

A commercial approach might argue that we should sub-contract imprisonment. So, rather than building jails, we export criminals and pay a fee for the imprisonment service but without incurring capital or maintenance or running costs.

What is the actual legal impediment to sending prisoners abroad ? Cue human rights perspectives.......

Tenigate

Personally I'd rather she'd pay a multiple back, possibly with less jail time and with agreement of the party she had defrauded. But then we'd probably listen to all that guff about the people able to pay getting shorter sentences. So for what it is, it's a fair sentence. She'll probably be out sooner.

Raisins

lifeandtimes wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-several-drivers-avoided-jail-after-being-convicted-of-causing-death-36460558.html

In a further case a driver who lost control of her car, mounting a footpath and killing a young child, received a €500 fine and a three-year disqualification from driving. The judge took into account an early plea of guilt, the fact the driver was not speeding and that she was very distressed and remorseful. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence on the basis of undue leniency, but failed to have it varied by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

wow some of these are actually shocking but just confirms my point of there being conistancy with sentencing

We don't know how she lost control of that car. That's a tiny snapshot of the facts deliberately slanted. The line between careless and dangerous driving in practical terms in the courts is marginal. The horrendous outcome is sometimes totally disproportionate to the manoeuvre in the dangerous act. That's why judges have a wide berth in those cases which can fall between a drunk disqualified criminal doing 150kmph and a misjudgment from a person with a completely clean licence which can both cause death. Each case has to be considered on its merits. It doesn't matter what number a judge comes up you'll always find a mob of people to disagree with it, either that it's too low or too high.

Raisins

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

What is the actual legal impediment to sending prisoners abroad ? Cue human rights perspectives.......

There's no legal impediment that couldn't be overcome I'm sure. You should get on to your local TD. Do some reading up on Norfolk Island to get some ideas.

lifeandtimes

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

What is the actual legal impediment to sending prisoners abroad ? Cue human rights perspectives.......

They're entitled to visits from family and that can't really be done if they are abroad.

There would be parole hearings which would have to be in english and then when they are released they'd have to be flown back hime etc

Tenigate

lifeandtimes wrote: »

They're entitled to visits from family and that can't really be done if they are abroad.

There would be parole hearings which would have to be in english and then when they are released they'd have to be flown back hime etc

Skype should be fine. Shorter, harsher jail time ftw

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

pablo128

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

As coylemj says, the prisons are full.

A commercial approach might argue that we should sub-contract imprisonment. So, rather than building jails, we export criminals and pay a fee for the imprisonment service but without incurring capital or maintenance or running costs.

What is the actual legal impediment to sending prisoners abroad ? Cue human rights perspectives.......

Why would we need to send them abroad? I'm sure Denis o Brien would knock up a couple of prisons in Leitrim if he got the contract.

Someone mentioned Skype instead of visits. Not a bad idea.

Peregrinus

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A commercial approach might argue that we should sub-contract imprisonment. So, rather than building jails, we export criminals and pay a fee for the imprisonment service but without incurring capital or maintenance or running costs.

What is the actual legal impediment to sending prisoners abroad ? Cue human rights perspectives.......

There's an obvious practical problem? Who's going to take them? It's not like Ireland has a network of colonies or client states that it can transform into extra-territorial prisons.

And there's a legal problem once they get to wherever "abroad" is; what is the legal basis for their continue detention? They have committed no crime in "abroad", they have not been before the courts of "abroad", the orders of any Irish court have no legal force in "abroad", etc, etc. So, once they get to "abroad", what's to stop them bringing habeas corpus proceedings in the courts of "abroad" and simply walking free?

And another legal problem; you can't send someone out of the jurisdiction in order to violate his constitutionally-protected rights. Which means that you'd have to ensure that the legal regime in "abroad" would respect, protect and vindicate the prisoner's rights arising under the Irish constitution (including their right of access to the Irish courts).

Peregrinus

kub wrote: »

Perhaps it is time to consider sending our prisoners abroad to South America to some 3rd world countries where they could experience some real punishment, I have to wonder will this stop repeat offenders.

Yes, their prison system is obviously an effective deterrent, because those countries have such noticeably low offending rates. :rolleyes:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

decky1

A friend of mine was caught with no NCT, so off to court where the judge[must have been having a bad day] insisted he go straight to jail for a number of weeks, it took quite a while for them to change the judges mind, --bit much eh? no wonder the jails are full.

Tenigate

decky1 wrote: »

A friend of mine was caught with no NCT, so off to court where the judge[must have been having a bad day] insisted he go straight to jail for a number of weeks, it took quite a while for them to change the judges mind, --bit much eh? no wonder the jails are full.

Really? Did he have prior convictions, particularly motoring convictions.. no insurance, no tax, drink driving? If so, and your friend regularly flouted the law I'd have little sympathy. Jail-for a number of weeks- might have helped your friend realise that laws are there for a reason.

If no prior convictions, I'd question the judge's sanity.

johnnyskeleton

kub wrote: »

There are huge vested interests in the legal business, I am convinced of it at this stage.
People here wonder how hardened criminals get lighter sentences, well it is simple really, I am sure the majority of them rely on free legal aid, so the tax payer looks after their legal costs and defence.
Best all round if these criminals do not spend too long in prison as they will not be on the streets doing what they do best and therefore not needing the services of the legal business at the tax payers expense.
Now well done to that judge in this case but nothing is going to change. We will see people like this lady and the garlic man getting proper sentences but unfortunately I cannot see it being the case for the hardened criminals.

I also hear that Doctors sneak around to people's houses and plant the flu virus around this time of year to keep themselves in clover!

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In the first place, we don't have any client states who will cede chunks of their territory to us on demand.

Even if we did, it would require a constitutional referendum at our end - the national territory and the area of application of Irish laws are set out in the Constitution.

And, finally, wouldn't that defeat the point of the whole exercise? The object is to put Irish prisoners in a foreign prison regime, not to put them in an Irish prison regime in a little bit of Ireland that happens to be surrounded by Teapotistan.

Samuel T. Cogley

AFAIK now prisons are operating at about 80%. That's a boards fact though so I welcome correction there.

Peregrinus

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

AFAIK now prisons are operating at about 80%. That's a boards fact though so I welcome correction there.

As of last Friday the official figure was 86%.