Another lenient sentence?

duffman13

This lunatic went on an 8 hour rampage and destroyed numerous cars and robbed a number of cars at gun point. The judge said he would have given 14 years but the defendant showed remorse.

Over 30 previous convictions, bit of a joke to get off with 9 years for the damage caused and the number of Gardai involved

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0608/969236-rampage-dublin/

Wibbs

Another lenient sentence under Irish "justice"? And you're surprised D? My surprise at such sentencing has long gone stale. It's a bloody farce.

mick malones mauser

Out in 5 ?

slavetothegrind

what about the automatic 10 years for the illegal firearm?

Judge is a disgrace.

Nothing new sadly.

greencap

Bit reckless to not hand down the maximum, with all that talk of sub-machine guns, and break ins.

If I was that judge I'd be worried about having blood on my hands.
Surprised that the judges self interest didn't hand down more time, or some kind of psychological assessment conditions.

That said 9 years isn't exactly too short either. Thats 2027.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Getting sick to death of seeing these soft sentences for thugs with tons of convictions. These judges are completely out of touch.

Try_harder

9 years isnt short. Cant imagine many here doing 9 days let alone 9 years

Donald Trump

Ah in fairness

When I read the story I thought "Sounds like a bit of a character"

And I bet I wasn't the only one!

Real life GTA! The mental bastard

Samuel T. Cogley

greencap wrote: »

Bit reckless to not hand down the maximum, with all that talk of sub-machine guns, and break ins.

If I was that judge I'd be worried about having blood on my hands.
Surprised that the judges self interest didn't hand down more time, or some kind of psychological assessment conditions.

That said 9 years isn't exactly too short either. Thats 2027.

More like 2024. 9 years was wholly inappropriate given the scale of the crimes involved. It would be different if he was going to get any sort of rehab inside but this is clearly a touched individual.

Samuel T. Cogley

Try_harder wrote: »

9 years isnt short. Cant imagine many here doing 9 days let alone 9 years

I doubt many of us would, it's one of the reasons we don't go around assaulting and robbing people, that and being taught right from wrong. The fact that you can assault and rob someone and possibly get away with a suspended sentence is one of the reasons that people who have had no parental influence in their lives do it.

This 9 year sentence is just indicative of the judicial attitude towards violent crime.

duffman13

Try_harder wrote: »

9 years isnt short. Cant imagine many here doing 9 days let alone 9 years

It's not short but i couldn't imagine many here with 30 odd previous convictions grabbing a sub machine gun, having their kids and grandkids locking themselves into a bedroom. Then going on a rampage for 8 hours with a number of armed hijackings taking place throughout the day.

But he said sorry so it's ok

Try_harder

He pleaded guilty so that is a reduction and he showed -remorse- so he could not get max, it would have been reduced on appeal

Overheal

I’m just here to say Eddie Halvey enough said.

Greybottle

He got 14, but reduced to 9 because he was remorseful and he owned up.

36 previous convictions.

Fcuking joke. Do what you want, just make sure you can afford a good brief.

Try_harder

What would Boards recommend?

Guantanamo Bay for life no doubt!

Samuel T. Cogley

Greybottle wrote: »

He got 14, but reduced to 9 because he was remorseful and he owned up.

36 previous convictions.

Fcuking joke. Do what you want, just make sure you can afford a good brief.

A reduction in sentence is completely justified and is how the system works, with 90% pleading guilty. If that was removed the CJS costs would spiral out of control. It's also completely right that anyone should be able to avail of the same standard of lawyer as anyone else.

Now I'm certainly up for Legal Aid having to be repaid by people found guilty. In this case though there should have been an element of consecutive sentencing with time knocked off the resulting 30 or so years.

Try_harder

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

A reduction in sentence is completely justified and is how the system works, with 90% pleading guilty. If that was removed the CJS costs would spiral out of control. It's also completely right that anyone should be able to avail of the same standard of lawyer as anyone else.

Now I'm certainly up for Legal Aid having to be repaid by people found guilty. In this case though there should have been an element of consecutive sentencing with time knocked off the resulting 30 or so years.

How do they pay without means to pay???

SEPT 23 1989

The rampage kind of petered out at the end

ygolometsipe

This is a misconception about how the law works.

The judge tries to figure out how long they need in prison to learn how not to get caught.
Some are faster learners and get a lower sentence.

If they don't get caught, the crime didn't happen.

BattleCorp

Try_harder wrote: »

9 years isnt short. Cant imagine many here doing 9 days let alone 9 years

Can't see many here going on this kind of rampage either.

9 years isn't short but he was caught for a bit more than jaywalking.

Squatter

Martin Nolan was the judge. Nothing, repeat nothing, further needs to be said.

Whenever defence counsel discover that their case will be heard by Nolan, they exchange high fives and dance jigs of pure rapture in the corridors of the Four Courts.

AllForIt

You always hear judges say the convicted either showed remorse or they didn't show any remorse.

I really can't see how, either way in fact, why that should make a difference to the sentence.

It's surely easily open to abuse such as in the case one isn't actually remorseful they could feign remorse in the hope of a lighter sentence. And yes I don't think showing no remorse should get a harder sentence either. It's not like there is a sure fire way of ascertaining one is truly remorseful or not anyway.

Oh and btw OP html code don't work in thread titles.

Try_harder

Squatter wrote: »

Martin Nolan was the judge. Nothing, repeat nothing, further needs to be said.

Whenever defence counsel discover that their case will be heard by Nolan, they exchange high fives and dance jigs of pure rapture in the corridors of the Four Courts.

Why are they in the Four Courts though???

Samuel T. Cogley

Try_harder wrote: »

How do they pay without means to pay???

They can work it off in prison at €1 an hour or they can start paying when their out and have started work. I'm all for a rehabilitate system but it's time to stop people leaching off the state. Personally I think they should pay for their prison time too but they'd never work that off.

Samuel T. Cogley

Squatter wrote: »

Martin Nolan was the judge. Nothing, repeat nothing, further needs to be said.

Whenever defence counsel discover that their case will be heard by Nolan, they exchange high fives and dance jigs of pure rapture in the corridors of the Four Courts.

Well they'd be in the CCJ and they won't be doing that if it's a financial crime. I though Nolan did a lot of sentence hearings rather than cases de novo but I'm open to correction there.

McCrack

Squatter wrote: »

Martin Nolan was the judge. Nothing, repeat nothing, further needs to be said.

Whenever defence counsel discover that their case will be heard by Nolan, they exchange high fives and dance jigs of pure rapture in the corridors of the Four Courts.

The criminal courts sit in the CCJ, not the Four Courts

So perhaps counsel exchange their high fives there

Squatter

McCrack wrote: »

The criminal courts sit in the CCJ, not the Four Courts So perhaps counsel exchange their high fives there

The term "Four Courts" is a generic description - rather like describing the English media as "Fleet Street" although there aren't any newspapers left there!

But hey! as an honours graduate of the ISAP*, I'm always delighted to encounter some fellow nitpickers!

* Irish School of Advanced Pedantry.

McCrack

Squatter wrote: »

The term "Four Courts" is a generic description - rather like describing the English media as "Fleet Street" although there aren't any newspapers left there!

But hey! as an honours graduate of the ISAP*, I'm always delighted to encounter some fellow nitpickers!

* Irish School of Advanced Pedantry.

Nah im just calling you out that you clearly dont have legal practice experience to suggest defence counsel somehow celebrate when their client has been drawn Judge Nolan for sentence

In other words youre talking out your arse

Try_harder

When did Four Courts become a generic term? Missed that memo!

Squatter

McCrack wrote: »

Nah im just calling you out that you clearly dont have legal practice experience to suggest defence counsel somehow celebrate when their client has been drawn Judge Nolan for sentence

In other words youre talking out your arse

But experience has shown me that that's by far the easiest way to communicate with a particular subset of abusive b.ie pedants.

Squatter

Try_harder wrote: »

When did Four Courts become a generic term? Missed that memo!

The memo was circulated shortly after the words "gob" and "sh1te" were combined for the first time (by Brendan Behan, I think) to describe a particularly irritating type of nose picker.