Irish court judgments' watch: yet another shameful one

On tonight's RTÉ News, 27-year-old Francis Hughes from Castleblayney received 8 years for murdering a 41-year-old father of four children, Graham Tobin, in a single punch, unprovoked attack.

Although Hughes was only found guilty of "manslaughter", after the assault he closed the blinds, locked the doors of the house and threatened anybody who wanted to call the ambulance so the victim lay on the floor for hours with Hughes reported as saying he was 'not going back to jail'. Back? He then suggested that he would put the victim in his car boot and drive off and bury him. At this stage the victim was not even dead; he died 11 days later in Beaumont. With remission, will Hughes even have to serve 6 of those years before he's released? How can a human life have such little value put on it? Indeed, as the victim is leaving 4 children and a wife, 6-8 years in prison is beyond offensive. Once again an Irish judge is not laying down any deterrent for the seemingly endless number of yobs with zero value on human life. Yes, prison is rarely the solution especially when drug addiction is involved but if a thug knows that with a decent sob story he'll only get a slap on the wrist even for taking a life it's not much of a protection for the rest of us.


Irish Times: Man jailed for eight years for ‘one-punch’ manslaughter


RTÉ: Man sentenced to eight years for fatal single-punch attack]Man sentenced to eight years for fatal single-punch attack

A 27-year-old man who pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Graham Tobin in a single-punch attack in Co Monaghan last October has been sentenced to eight years in jail.

Francis Hughes with an address in Oram, Castleblayney, admitted punching Graham Tobin at the same address, where a number of people had gathered to watch a Conor McGregor MMA fight.

Handing down the sentence today, Judge John Aylmer said the case was an exceptionally serious unprovoked attack.

He noted the failure of Hughes to seek medical attention after the incident, the prevention of others to seek medical help and his suggestion at one point to put the victim in the boot of his car.

Judge Alymer said the severity of the punch to the nose caused a number of fractures to Mr Tobin and noted Hughes' expression of satisfaction, according to witnesses, when he knocked Mr Tobin out.

However, he said he was taking into account the fact Hughes made an early guilty plea and while he did not cooperate with the garda investigation he handed himself in to gardaí for interview.

Judge Alymer said Hughes has been described as a model prisoner who had obtained a certificate in an alternatives to violence project.

The family of Mr Tobin reacted emotionally when the sentence was handed down.

Mr Tobin's wife, Ramona, left the courtroom shortly afterwards in tears.

Monaghan Circuit Court was told the victim had been struck in the face by Hughes in what was described as an "unprovoked assault".

Mr Tobin fell back and struck his head on a step at the back of the house.

He never regained consciousness and died at Beaumont Hospital in Dublin 11 days later. The father-of-four suffered injuries to the head and brain that included a fractured skull.

Mr Tobin was one of a number of people who had gone to the house to watch a UFC fight involving McGregor. The fight ended at around 5am.

The court was also told that a female witness who said she saw the attack believed it happened at about 6am.

It was not until 9.55am that the ambulance service was called and gardaí were alerted.

Sergeant John Daly, who led the investigation, said a number of witnesses were interviewed and had reported that Hughes initially claimed that the injured man was fine.

He told the court the witnesses said that Hughes had pulled down the blinds, locked the doors and asked people not to call an ambulance saying: "I'm not going back to jail."

The female witness and another man left the house shortly before 10am. She then called the ambulance service, but did so anonymously because she was in fear.

In a victim impact statement, Mr Tobin's wife said it was difficult enough to accept that her husband had died from a violent assault, but that this was compounded by the way that he was left lying for hours in a stranger's house while critically injured.

Hughes's Defence Counsel told the court that he believed his client was genuinely remorseful for what happened.

He said that Hughes knew that he did something that was "terribly wrong", despite the comments attributed to him in the immediate aftermath, when he would have been "out of his mind" on drink and drugs.

The court heard Hughes had 74 previous convictions, mostly for road traffic and public order offences, with only one being for an assault.

---

What recent court judgements have made you shake your head in disbelief?

padd b1975

McGregor fan....

happyoutscan

What a useless ****.

Jamemid

There needs to be a sentencing panel deciding length of punishment,not just down to one person.

McCrack

People don't seem to understand that Judges when sentencing are confined to legislation which sets out penalty limits and are also restricted by court of Appeal decisions. Judges don't just have a free hand that public think they have

If a sentence is deemed unduly lenient the Dpp will appeal it

If you think sentences are too soft lobby your td for a change in the legislation.. Judges apply the law, they don't make it

ILoveYourVibes

No, they're about right

McCrack wrote: »

People don't seem to understand that Judges when sentencing are confined to legislation which sets out penalty limits and are also restricted by court of Appeal decisions. Judges don't just have a free hand that public think they have

If a sentence is deemed unduly lenient the Dpp will appeal it

If you think sentences are too soft lobby your td for a change in the legislation.. Judges apply the law, they don't make it

Maybe they should have.

I would guess judges are under pressure from the severely over stretched prison service as well.

Varik

No, they're about right

There has been some movement on this, you've the Judicial Council Bill.

Which could be called the After Hours bill, covers insurance payouts, sentencing guidelines (right now most just have a max and no min), and misconduct hearings for Judges.

Yurt2

Varik wrote: »

There has been some movement on this, you've the Judicial Council Bill.

Which could be called the After Hours bill, covers insurance payouts, sentencing guidelines (right now most just have a max and no min), and misconduct hearings for Judges.

Could you imagine if After Hours ran the country? 7 year old shoplifters who stole a Roy of the Rovers bar from Maxol would have their hands lopped off Saudi Arabia style.

NO MERCY FOR SHOPLIFTING SCUM. 30 LASHES FOR THEIR PARENTS TOO

rainbowtrout

No, they're about right

Aegir wrote: »

I would guess judges are under pressure from the severely over stretched prison service as well.

Possibly, but they are supposed to be passing sentence based on the evidence in front of them, not how crowded the cells are in Mountjoy.

hatrickpatrick

No, they're about right

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Possibly, but they are supposed to be passing sentence based on the evidence in front of them, not how crowded the cells are in Mountjoy.

Absolutely. It should be up to the government to respond to pressures on the prison system by building more of them, not up to judges to facilitate an under resourcing of the prison system by being lenient in their sentencing.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Could you imagine if After Hours ran the country? 7 year old shoplifters who stole a Roy of the Rovers bar from Maxol would have their hands lopped off Saudi Arabia style.

NO MERCY FOR SHOPLIFTING SCUM. 30 LASHES FOR THEIR PARENTS TOO

And in a generation's time, we wouldn't be overrun with scum like we are now.

Rubberchikken

i dont get the hysteria over these and other judgements.
they were made for various reasons best known to the over paid over protected judges this country is filled with.

Dante7

McCrack wrote: »

People don't seem to understand that Judges when sentencing are confined to legislation which sets out penalty limits and are also restricted by court of Appeal decisions. Judges don't just have a free hand that public think they have

If a sentence is deemed unduly lenient the Dpp will appeal it

If you think sentences are too soft lobby your td for a change in the legislation.. Judges apply the law, they don't make it

Nonsense. The maximum allowable sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. Judges in these cases decide not to impose these harsh sentences due to previous example cases, where lenient sentences were imposed by - other Judges. The laws are there. The sentences are just not imposed by these gob****es.

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

And in a generation's time, we wouldn't be overrun with scum like we are now.

Scum. SCUM. Off with their little fingers and toes.

Feed their parents to the pigs. SCUUUUUUUM

McCrack

Dante7 wrote: »

Nonsense. The maximum allowable sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. Judges in these cases decide not to impose these harsh sentences due to previous example cases, where lenient sentences were imposed by - other Judges. The laws are there. The sentences are just not imposed by these gob****es.

Well obviously not when the penalty for murder is life but manslaughter is not as culpable as murder and life Imprisonment for the crime of manslaughter would ever only be considered in the most unusual case or with particular facts and where there is a not guilty plea

You should read up on the principles of sentencing

biko

AH should be judge and jury for all crime.

Also, we need to have the death penalty back.

kneemos

Looked like an accident. He hit his head as he fell.

Collie D

kneemos wrote: »

Looked like an accident. He hit his head as he fell.

I’d be more disgusted by him preventing an ambulance being called and making no effort to help than the actual punch and result.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

No, they're about right

McCrack wrote: »

People don't seem to understand that Judges when sentencing are confined to legislation which sets out penalty limits and are also restricted by court of Appeal decisions. Judges don't just have a free hand that public think they have

If a sentence is deemed unduly lenient the Dpp will appeal it

If you think sentences are too soft lobby your td for a change in the legislation.. Judges apply the law, they don't make it

Every time this happens or is discussed the legislature is blaimed.

in fact (as you admit) courts influence laws and in particular sentencing. And legislators can only overcome that by mandating exact sentences, as in life for murder, and I presume people don’t want that for manslaughter.

This judge in fact went fairly high. Here’s the stats for 2018.

In terms of sentencing for manslaughter, 47% were sentenced between two to five years, 47% between five to ten years, and 4% over 10 years.

The maximum alllowable sentence under the legislation is life. The minimum is a fine.

Maybe the Dail should legislate for a minimum sentence for manslaughter but there’s a reason not to have one. Say an argument breaks out in an old folks home, one old chap hits the other and because of previous medical conditions the second guy collapses and dies. Mandating a minimum sentence for that - putting an octogenarian in jail for 10 years - wouldn’t make sense.

The problem in Ireland isn’t the laws but the application of them by the courts. They had a wide range of options, up to life, but made about 5 years the precedent. Anything higher than average can be appealed for unfairness.

To overcome that we would need a new category for the octogenarian fight (death by assault) and make manslaughter mandatory but knowing the Irish courts they would refuse to convict most people for manslaughter.

Christ if murder didn’t have mandatory life (as recommended by the law reform commission) sentencing there would drop to 5 years or so.

McCrack

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

That’s not true of common law systems where in fact (as you admit) courts influence laws and sentencing.

Yes however the starting and most fundamental point is the penalty range which the legislature sets, not judges and then the principles of sentencing are applied along with previous decisions.. Sentencing judges can only work within the law

kneemos

Collie D wrote: »

I’d be more disgusted by him preventing an ambulance being called and making no effort to help than the actual punch and result.

Hindering medical assistance is a crime I think. Probably would have got off a lot lighter if he'd called an ambulance.

MrMusician18

8 years is a long stretch in prison in fairness

Franz Von Peppercorn II

No, they're about right

McCrack wrote: »

Yes however the starting and most fundamental point is the penalty range which the legislature sets, not judges and then the principles of sentencing are applied along with previous decisions.. Sentencing judges can only work within the law

The maximum is life. It was up to judges to apply those longer sentences. They didn’t abd have set their own precedent.

kneemos

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The maximum is life. It was up to judges to apply those longer sentences. They didn’t abd have set their own precedent.

Why would you give life for an accident?

sligojoek

What pi$$es me off is the fact that he was given credit for pleading guilty.

There was never anyone else in the frame.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

No, they're about right

McCrack wrote: »

Well obviously not when the penalty for murder is life but manslaughter is not as culpable as murder and life Imprisonment for the crime of manslaughter would ever only be considered in the most unusual case or with particular facts and where there is a not guilty plea

You should read up on the principles of sentencing

There is a large difference between 4/5 years and life. Maybe the taking of a life should have higher sentencing guidelines.

Dublin Spur

No, they're about right

SICKENING

The focus needs to be more on punishment and public safety rather than rehab.
That means long sentences - minimum 20 years for stuff like this.
This knacker should be in a cell for the rest of his life in my opinion - but he won't sadly

Franz Von Peppercorn II

No, they're about right

kneemos wrote: »

Why would you give life for an accident?

I didn’t say I would. Read what I said. The maximum in the legislation is life. I was responding to someone who blamed politicans.

Many jurisdictions would consider the fact that he stopped the ambulance pretty serious and might bring a murder charge. In Ireland however murder charges are rare.

touts

No, they're about right

If judges regularly imposed the maximum sentence then there would be less business for the justice industry. That's the core problem in the system. Judges, barristers, solicitors etc make more money if there are more criminals on the street committing crimes so they have a financial incentive not to send people to jail.

The answer is quite simple. A three strike rule (but a sensible one not the break three windows get life in prison they tried in the US). On your third conviction you lose the right to the leniency that a caring society grants to people who make a mistake. On that third conviction the judge loses any discretion to apply a reduced sentence. The criminal is given the maximum sentence for that and any future crimes without the option for parole or early release. Also after three convictions criminals lose the right to bail for the fourth or subsequent charges after their release from jail.

Fool is once shame on you. Fool us twice shame on us but we'll give you another chance. Fool us a third time.......

Dublin Spur

No, they're about right

Why do we (the citizens) never get the opportunity to shape the kind of sentencing we would like to see.
Surely in any fair society, it should be up to the citizens to decide the type of sentencing we would like to see in our country.

There should be referendums on subjects like consecutive or concurrent sentences, capital punishment, a Life sentence meaning Life etc....

Surely the guidelines for sentencing should be based on what the majority of the citizens would like to see?

And if we opt for the softer options then so bit it, but at least we had our say.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

This judge in fact went fairly high. Here’s the stats for 2018.

In terms of sentencing for manslaughter, 47% were sentenced between two to five years, 47% between five to ten years, and 4% over 10 years.

The maximum alllowable sentence under the legislation is life. The minimum is a fine.

Jesus Christ. When you consider the tiny amount of murder convictions actually secured here the vast majority of convicted killers are being sentenced to under 10 years. Ridiculous.

handlemaster

No, they're about right

Aegir wrote: »

I would guess judges are under pressure from the severely over stretched prison service as well.

I hear this a lot, more bunk beds. Its not a hotel. Prison is meant to be a place you dont want to go , or go back to .

McCrack

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

There is a large difference between 4/5 years and life. Maybe the taking of a life should have higher sentencing guidelines.

Youre right there is, there's also a difference between the crime of murder (mandatory life) and the crime of manslaughter and then you have various degrees of manslaughter.. Voluntary and involuntary and all the subsets within those so the legislature allows anything from a wholly suspended to life Imprisonment for manslaughter.. Either of those extremes reserved for the most unusual cases with particular and unique facts

SexBobomb

No, they're about right

padd b1975 wrote: »

McGregor fan....

I heard he listened to that Rock and Roll Devil music as well, its all their fault.

Yurt2

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Why do we (the citizens) never get the opportunity to shape the kind of sentencing we would like to see.
Surely in any fair society, it should be up to the citizens to decide the type of sentencing we would like to see in our country.

There should be referendums on subjects like consecutive or concurrent sentences, capital punishment, a Life sentence meaning Life etc....

Surely the guidelines for sentencing should be based on what the majority of the citizens would like to see?

And if we opt for the softer options then so bit it, but at least we had our say.

The Oireachtas are empowered to set maximum and minimum (as they did with murder) sentences.

The trick is, mandatory minimums for everything from assault to stealing a Mars bar would remove all sense of proportionality from the system. Not all crimes are the same, and not all are committed with the same malice of forethought. You could end up with a situation where a person that has a psychotic break, robs a shop, steals a car while high, punches someone and drives it into a wall all in one sequence of events could conceivably end up with the same sentence as a premeditated murderer if a judge is bound by mandatory minimums and consecutive sentencing rules.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

No, they're about right

McCrack wrote: »

Youre right there is, there's also a difference between the crime of murder (mandatory life) and the crime of manslaughter and then you have various degrees of manslaughter.. Voluntary and involuntary and all the subsets within those so the legislature allows anything from a wholly suspended to life Imprisonment for manslaughter.. Either of those extremes reserved for the most unusual cases with particular and unique facts

Ok. So your claim that the laws need to change isn’t true. The judiciary have a wide range of options but choose to go low for the average case of manslaughter. That has set a precedent. The problem is the judges. Not the laws.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

No, they're about right

Yurt! wrote: »

The Oireachtas are empowered to set maximum and minimum (as they did with murder) sentences.

The trick is, mandatory minimums for everything from assault to stealing a Mars bar would remove all sense of proportionality from the system. Not all crimes are the same, and not all are committed with the same malice of forethought. You could end up with a situation where a person that has a psychotic break, robs a shop, steals a car while high, punches someone and drives it into a wall all in one sequence of events could conceivably end up with the same sentence as a premeditated murderer if a judge is bound by mandatory minimums and concurrent sentences.

So the law is fine. The problem is that the judiciary tends to lower scale for the average sentence of manslaughter.

McCrack

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Ok. So your claim that the laws need to change isn’t true. The judiciary have a wide range of options but choose to go low for the average case of manslaughter. That has set a precedent. The problem is the judges. Not the laws.

I did not claim laws need to change - I have explained in general terms the sentencing process and what Judges have to consider and what they are restricted with

You need to look at the average sentence served for life in case of murder and thing about it logically when applying that to manslaughter which as I have pointed out there are various degrees of and facts/circumstances peculiar to individual cases

Yurt2

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

So the law is fine. The problem is that the judiciary tends to lower scale for the average sentence of manslaughter.

Judges while empowered to sentence proportionally with regards to the facts of the case, are also bound by a type of 'book of quantum' of sentencing precedents. This is important as otherwise you'd have a soft judge constantly doling out soft sentences when the seriousness of the crime demands more, and you'd have conservative judges applying the maximum all the time even when compelling mitigating circumstances are at play. Ignore these precedents and either the DPP or the defense will have you in a higher court for an innaopropriate sentence.

Another problem with mandatory minimums is that it doesn't give incentive to plead guilty when you're caught red handed. We see this most often in murder trials when judges have no sentencing discretion. The jury and family are dragged through a traumatic trial because the defense and accused rightly know that the case might fall on procedure, and if you plead guilty you'll just get the same sentence anyway, so why not take your chances?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

No, they're about right

Yurt! wrote: »

Judges while empowered to sentence proportionally with regards to the facts of the case, are also bound by a type of 'book of quantum' of sentencing precedents. This is important as otherwise you'd have a soft judge constantly doling out soft sentences when the seriousness of the crime demands more, and you'd have conservative judges applying the maximum all the time even when compelling mitigating circumstances are at play. Ignore these precedents and either the DPP or the defense will have you in a higher court for an innaopropriate sentence.

So not the problem with lawmakers then. This is all precedent.

Another problem with mandatory minimums is that it doesn't give incentive to plead guilty when you're caught red handed. We see this most often in murder trials when judges have no sentencing discretion. The jury and family are dragged through a traumatic trial because the defense and accused rightly know that the case might fall on procedure, and if you plead guilty you'll just get the same sentence anyway, so why not take your chances?

I’m not in favour of mandatory minimums. I’m merely responding to the poster who said “call your TD”.

Yamanoto

Shameful......unless you're a Provo who's blown people to smithereens.

Then the OP wants you out of prison & all that kerfuffle forgotten about.

James Brown

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Maybe they should have.

The last thing we need are privileged people who view life through a bubble deciding things off the cuff.

Yamanoto

No, they're about right

Yamanoto wrote: »

Shameful......unless you're a Provo who's blown people to smithereens.

That's a consistently impressive chip on your shoulder there, Yamanoto. Well done. Next time just try and stay on topic. Thanks.

Yamanoto

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a consistently impressive chip on your shoulder there, Yamanoto. Well done. Next time just try and stay on topic. Thanks.

Just pointing out your hypocrisy, yet again.

Scoundrel

Actually by Irish standards this is quite a severe sentence for manslaughter especially a one punch scenario there have been cased where people have got 2 years or 3 years for manslaughter here.

Yamanoto

No, they're about right

Yamanoto wrote: »

Just pointing out your hypocrisy, yet again.

You're actually not; you haven't given a single piece of evidence for any of your silly claims. You're just trying to derail another thread.

Edgware

Scoundrel wrote: »

Actually by Irish standards this is quite a severe sentence for manslaughter especially a one punch scenario there have been cased where people have got 2 years or 3 years for manslaughter here.

Well if every **** who assaulted a person on the street just got six months you would find the instances of manslaughter as a result of one punch assaults dropping.
Give too much leeway to low level street violence and the bastards think they will get away with more serious stuff

Scoundrel

Edgware wrote: »

Well if every **** who assaulted a person on the street just got six months you would find the instances of manslaughter as a result of one punch assaults dropping.
Give too much leeway to low level street violence and the bastards think they will get away with more serious stuff

No it wouldn't someone out of their head on coke or whatever just about to hit a fella a smack doesn't stop and think oh i better not do this i'll get 6 months(and be out in 2) Jesus

No, they're about right

Why is a freshly convicted child rapist given bail while awaiting sentencing? He was convicted on 4 June, and told to come back today, 21 June, for sentencing. A convicted child rapist let free for a further 17 days. How is that justified? The fact that he actually never turned up in Court today for sentencing means he's still free to harm more children (as you'll see below, he's a serial offender).

Dylan Higgins read his own victim impact statement into the record during the sentencing of Anthony Moynihan (54) at the Central Criminal Court.

Moynihan of Croccane, Rostellan, Midleton had previously pleaded guilty to two charges of anal rape and two counts of sexually assaulting Mr Higgins on dates between September 9, 2006 and June 27, 2008.... Moynihan has three previous convictions for sexually assaulting two young girls in 2008 and 2009 for which he received a suspended sentence. Again, these girls had gone to Moynihan's home together on the understanding that he would give them cigarettes.

Mr Justice Michael White remanded Moynihan on continuing bail and adjourned sentencing to June 21 next.(Source)