The price of fame ?

blackwhite

I'd be more worried by this quote from the judge TBH

Judge O’Leary said to the injured party: “The evidence is that you were not minding your own business and that you started talking to the man.”

So clearly in the opinion of O'Leary a woman "talking to a man" is an action which can be considered a mitigating factor in an assault.

You can guarantee if the perpetrator was male any comments like this from a judge would be greeted with public outcry (including from one or two posters on here who are currently trying to minimise this assault).

jmayo

blackwhite wrote: »

I'd be more worried by this quote from the judge TBH

So clearly in the opinion of O'Leary a woman "talking to a man" is an action which can be considered a mitigating factor in an assault.

You can guarantee if the perpetrator was male any comments like this from a judge would be greeted with public outcry (including from one or two posters on here who are currently trying to minimise this assault).

Exactly this appears to be when he intervened with a garda giving evidence about one of the victims.

“The defendant was speaking with a male. Jennifer Coakley was standing nearby and she began speaking to the male. She (Thompson) struck out with her right elbow and contacted her face doing damage to same – it was superficial,” Insp. Hallahan said.

Judge O’Leary said to the injured party: “The evidence is that you were not minding your own business and that you started talking to the man.” Ms Coakley replied that she knew the man and that they were all in one group but that she did not know Ms Thompson before this.

The judge should be struck off for that kind of shyte and the prosecuting counsel shoudl have gone to town on that statement alone.

It is as fooking joke how we can't remove judges for poor incompetence and bias like this.

greenspurs

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

She has to pay €6000 to get off. What would you prefer, a prison sentence where it would cost the state money to keep her incarcerated? If she had been a scumbag with previous convictions she would have gotten far less and most likely been given a suspended sentence. It was a fair decision in my opinion.

She should at least have a conviction .
But I suppose that would affect her touring with the Camogie all stars to foreign countries.... poor girl.... :rolleyes:

Hedgelayer

It's only proper order she gets a conviction.
She assaulted someone, square deal.

Do the crime accept the time.

I bet if it was a Stella from Knockka who's up for an identical crime, she'd probably be in a lot more trouble.

Nermal

dudara wrote: »

As I understand, offering to pay compensation or making Poor Box donations has been an accepted way to avoid convictions for many years.

Was this case in the district court? In 2014 the High Court ruled “the District Court enjoys no jurisdiction to impose an informal sanction such as accepting a donation to the poor box, as this would amount to an indirect circumvention of the law”.

Judges routinely allow the avoidance of penalty points with donations to the poor box, despite this being prohibited by the Road Traffic Act 2010.

Among the causes deemed worthy of disbursing this money to was buying gym equipment for a Garda station.

Judges in this country are out of control.

LollipopJimmy

This kind of thing isn't unusual, however the unusual part is that the probation act is usually applied

_Kaiser_

Looks to me like another case of GAA ties being enough to influence court decisions. The fact she's a young girl (who has been allegedly called out on social media - bless her :rolleyes:) seems to be another factor.

Nonsense in both cases, and we all know that a similarly aged guy with no jersey wouldn't have gotten the same outcome.

c.p.w.g.w

Odhinn wrote: »

There's no fucking comparison between the two.

Your correct, one was guilty of assault and the others were found not guilty...the camogie stars actions much worse than the lads actions in the eyes of the law

TerrorFirmer

Don't agree at all that it's 'the price of fame'.

I was in court recently where a guy was up for a remarkably similar assault - a one punch attack thrown completely unprovoked which resulted in serious damage to the victim in the region of 5K to rectify.

The accused was ordered to pay costs + compensation but didn't get a conviction in that case either.

It happens regularly, it's really nothing to do with the fame of Ashling Thompson. Depends on the judge on the day too, obviously, but it is quite normal for these types of assaults to not result in convictions.

In this case, while Ashling Thompson didn't get a conviction, I understand she lost every single sponsorship deal she had bar one, and the fact that she's semi-famous in her field means it'll hang over her for a very long time.

So I don't think she 'got off', in any way shape or form.

Nikki Sixx

It seems a bit ridiculous that the judge is fawning over her and nearly making out that she was a victim herself, that somebody interrupted her chat with a man. I’d love to see a male Cork player assaulting two other men on a night out and how the judge would deal with him. Crazy stuff, that she nearly gets a pat on the back for what she did.

Calhoun

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Don't agree at all that it's 'the price of fame'.

I was in court recently where a guy was up for a remarkably similar assault - a one punch attack thrown completely unprovoked which resulted in serious damage to the victim in the region of 5K to rectify.

The accused was ordered to pay costs + compensation but didn't get a conviction in that case either.

It happens regularly, it's really nothing to do with the fame of Ashling Thompson. Depends on the judge on the day too, obviously, but it is quite normal for these types of assaults to not result in convictions.

In this case, while Ashling Thompson didn't get a conviction, I understand she lost every single sponsorship deal she had bar one, and the fact that she's semi-famous in her field means it'll hang over her for a very long time.

So I don't think she 'got off', in any way shape or form.

Exactly this as much as its fun to at the system ect we are generally fair in our "method" of buying your way out of an early conviction.

If we want to question anything it is the whole poor box process but it doesn't matter the individual generally unless it a really serious crime you will get away with a donation.

Nikki Sixx

The case shows how Ireland works overall. It’s all about who knows who, connections and influence. If the judge gets on well with your solicitor that helps. An organization like the G.A.A. can exert their influence on your behalf. If you have an online/media profile that will stand in your favour.

Eric Cartman

Odhinn wrote: »

There's no fucking comparison between the two.

Very true, she did actually assault the women.

Why is this country so remiss to prosecute women in the same way they do to men.

snotboogie

blackwhite wrote: »

Judge O’Leary said to the injured party: “The evidence is that you were not minding your own business and that you started talking to the man.”

Jesus christ, so talking to somebody in a nightclub is now a mitigating factor for getting elbowed in the face

Problem Of Motivation

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

It seems a bit ridiculous that the judge is fawning over her and nearly making out that she was a victim herself, that somebody interrupted her chat with a man..

Is that what actually happened? Somebody interrupted her chat with a man?

greenspurs

Problem Of Motivation wrote: »

Is that what actually happened? Somebody interrupted her chat with a man?

so she hit her in the face with her elbow/arm …….

...as you do.... :rolleyes: