inconsistency in sentencing

mynamejeff

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/law-student-who-swallowed-battery-before-biting-garda-and-spitting-blood-avoids-jail-38016277.html?fbclid=IwAR00ryua3JH0EYmqy5blB7Y6YHS5PIPGWPa-bxMKa3yFt43ukTZ4ElUQXuk

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pubgoer-jailed-for-biting-garda-and-threatening-to-shoot-bouncer-38015346.html

Two cases of a man biting a garda which are very alike with very different outcomes

how can two judges apply the law with such inconstancy ? Is it fair, just or even competent ? Is race or profession a factor ?

both men with commit similar offences of a similar age and circumstances abet one a law student one a lorry driver.

the circumstances differ in that one occurs in the court house cells following the imposition of a custodial sentence ( which although not clarified in the article would suggest a lot of previous, ie custody of rta offences ) and

the other drunk and belligerent in a pub seems to have no previous but contested the one of the charges .

One of the most frustrating aspects of the law is in my opinion the lack of consistency and regulation of judges

hullaballoo

It's not a lack of consistency.

It's nuance.

Each case is different, so, cases will inevitably have different outcomes.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's not a lack of consistency.

It's nuance.

Each case is different, so, cases will inevitably have different outcomes.

+1, the wonderful world of the law where one subtle difference is enough to see you down a different road in the opposite direction.

Tomas81

One word? mitigation.

I'd agree with OP regarding an inconsistency in sentencing. Not just with the above specific examples, but in general across the country and the spectrum of different crimes.

As an aside - The above examples should surely have the sentencing the other way around. One fella got drunk after ten years sober and tried to take on the world was arrested by Gardai. The other was already in custody (sober I believe) and deliberately attacked and spat blood at emergency services and needed Public Order Unit to remove him from his cell.

I don't think "I had a few drinks" is an excuse, but there's a difference in the above examples that goes beyond that.

mynamejeff

Tomas81 wrote: »

One word? mitigation.

How does mitigation in these cases result in the outcomes ?

surely the sober law student with previous should have received a heftier sentence than the intoxicated man with no negative history .

Is there no set of rules or guide lines that govern this ?

Is it just down to the vagaries of a judges temperament ?

Tomas81

mynamejeff wrote: »

How does mitigation in these cases result in the outcomes ?

surely the sober law student with previous should have received a heftier sentence than the intoxicated man with no negative history .

Is there no set of rules or guide lines that govern this ?

Is it just down to the vagaries of a judges temperament ?

If both men appear before a judge and the guy with previous, is now addressing substance misuse maybe went to residential treatment and so on.

4ensic15

There are considerable inconsistencies between various District Courts, not just in sentencing but in all types of business. There is no qualificatuioin for appointment other than 10 plus years practice as a lawyer. Appointees are plucked from practice and given a small amount ( a few days) of on the job shadowing a colleague and then they are off. Many have very little prior experience of criminal law.

ED E

4ensic15 wrote: »

There are considerable inconsistencies between various District Courts, not just in sentencing but in all types of business. There is no qualificatuioin for appointment other than 10 plus years practice as a lawyer. Appointees are plucked from practice and given a small amount ( a few days) of on the job shadowing a colleague and then they are off. Many have very little prior experience of criminal law.

Didnt know that. No blooming wonder we see such a spectrum of decisions.

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

There are considerable inconsistencies between various District Courts, not just in sentencing but in all types of business. There is no qualificatuioin for appointment other than 10 plus years practice as a lawyer. Appointees are plucked from practice and given a small amount ( a few days) of on the job shadowing a colleague and then they are off. Many have very little prior experience of criminal law.

The U.K. alternative being non stipendiary magistrates, ie not lawyers but persons who have done a course before being appointed to stand in judgement over others. It would be interesting to know whether life experience or a legal qualification produces better judges of summary jurisdiction.

4ensic15

Marcusm wrote: »

The U.K. alternative being non stipendiary magistrates, ie not lawyers but persons who have done a course before being appointed to stand in judgement over others. It would be interesting to know whether life experience or a legal qualification produces better judges of summary jurisdiction.

The non stipendiary magistrates are accompanied by a legally qualified clerk.
The whole point of courts of summary jurisdiction with limited sentencing powers and a right of aappeal is low cost drive by justice. to be an adjudicator in the RTB one has to sit a written exam. To be a DJ one only has to have held a practising certificate for the requisite period. Some have never been in court before their appointment.