Judge gives politician easy sentence

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/sf-councillor-who-knocked-out-victims-teeth-escapes-jail-sentence-38583536.html


"A Sinn Féin councillor who attacked his ex-wife's partner in a drunken rage, resulting in the loss of three of his teeth, avoided jail and was ordered to pay his victim €7,500."


This is unbelievable. Just because someone is a councillor, they shouldn't be treated leniently by the courts. A fine of €7,500 for knocking someone's teeth out is a complete disgrace. A complete thug who gets away without a jail sentence.

"In his victim impact statement which was read to the court, Mr Greene said he had suffered a loss of earnings, dental costs of €3,740, and the loss of three teeth which left it impossible for him to maintain a simple conversation."

How do people like this get elected? Why do judges go so easy on them?

We have national outrage over a few hundred in over-claimed expenses, yet a councillor can leave someone needing dentures in a pre-meditated attack and it passes in the media with little comment. Even Mick Wallace robbing his employees pensions, defrauding the taxpayer and playing ducks and drakes with the banks to avoid his debts, pales into comparison with the likes of this. The media and commentators have a lot to answer for when they ignore or play down this type of behaviour.

Will Mary-Lou do the decent thing and expel this thug from her party and ask him to stand down? I have little hope that she will.

DaraDali

Not to mention the false statement " Richardson claimed he had acted in self-defence." and trying to haggle the amount "Counsel for Richardson said his client apologised, had come to court with €2,000, and was prepared to pay Mr Greene €3,000 more."

Actually shocking no prison for him in this case. The victim has to wear dentures for the rest of his life.

Boggles

DaraDali wrote: »

Actually shocking no prison for him in this case.

Sorry, you are shocked that a guy who pleaded guilty with no relevant previous convictions didn't get a custodial sentence?

Really? Is this the first assault case you have ever read?

10fathoms

A Sinn Fein councillor acting like a scumbag? No surprises there

CrankyHaus

Sentencing in Ireland for violent crimes is already a joke so I'm not convinced this is any lighter than normal.

That said, Judges generally go soft on politicians, of any party, out of deference to their power. Some that spring to mind:

The blind eye turned to serious factual inconsistencies in FG TD Alan Farrell's successful personal injury claim.
Former FG TD Sean Conlan's €750 fine after he glassed a man, and then attempted to sue his victim for personal injuries.
Former Labour TD Michael McNamara's successful appeal against a charge of dangerous driving and obstructing Gardai. The Court accepted that he did not stop for a Gardai car in pursuit at 2am as he was not aware of it as he was listening to a CD of the musical Oliver at a loud volume.
FF TD Jim McDaid's €750 fine and 2 years off the road for driving very drunk along the wrong side of the N7 dual carraigeway for miles while vehicles approaching at high speed swerved to avoid a collision.
FF TD Willie O'Dea's zero penalty for perjury. In comparison Jeffrey Archer got a 4 year sentence for this in the UK.

Portsalon

10fathoms wrote: »

A Sinn Fein councillor acting like a scumbag? No surprises there

"Acting"?

Boggles

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Former Labour TD Michael McNamara's successful appeal against a charge of dangerous driving and obstructing Gardai. The Court accepted that he did not stop for a Gardai car in pursuit at 2am as he was not aware of it as he was listening to a CD of the musical Oliver at a loud volume.

It was thrown out because there was absolutely no way he was doing the speeds the guard accused him of.

There was also absolutely no way the guard was doing the speed he claimed he was.

Bad example TBH.

Muahahaha

This case is very similar to and reminds me of the time Dublin GAA footballer Diarmuid Connolly broke a mans jaw unprovoked and then he avoided prison on the proviso that he pay the victim €5,000 compensation. Which he then did his best to avoid paying.

Now given the OP is a big Dublin GAA supporter I am wondering did he also call for Diarmuid Connolly to be imprisoned and for Jim Gavin to drop him out of the Dublin GAA team permanently? Or is it only Sinn Fein thugs that he gets outraged about and Dublln GAA thugs get a free pass?

CrankyHaus

Boggles wrote: »

It was thrown out because there was absolutely no way he was doing the speeds the guard accused him of.

There was also absolutely no way the guard was doing the speed he claimed he was.

Bad example TBH.

According to an engineer who he paid to go into Court and say that. Considering the amount of dubious "expert" evidence advanced in our courts without any real controls on its quality I find this unconvincing.

Boggles

CrankyHaus wrote: »

According to an engineer who he paid to go into Court and say that. Considering the amount of dubious "expert" evidence advanced in our courts without any real controls on its quality I find this unconvincing.

The state is allowed their own expert witness, they didn't provide one.

tjhook

Although you could argue for a custodial sentence, I wouldn't have pushed for one.

But I'm surprised at the small sum awarded. If the same injuries had been a result of a sign falling in a train station, the award would have been multiple times that. It seems that if it's instead the actions of a scumbag, it's worthy of a far smaller award.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

This case is very similar to and reminds me of the time Dublin GAA footballer Diarmuid Connolly broke a mans jaw unprovoked and then he avoided prison on the proviso that he pay the victim €5,000 compensation. Which he then did his best to avoid paying.

Now given the OP is a big Dublin GAA supporter I am wondering did he also call for Diarmuid Connolly to be imprisoned and for Jim Gavin to drop him out of the Dublin GAA team permanently? Or is it only Sinn Fein thugs that he gets outraged about and Dublln GAA thugs get a free pass?

Is Diarmuid Connolly elected by the people to his unpaid position? No.

This councillor is elected by the people to his well-paid position.

Big difference.

Icemancometh

tjhook wrote: »

Although you could argue for a custodial sentence, I wouldn't have pushed for one.

But I'm surprised at the small sum awarded. If the same injuries had been a result of a sign falling in a train station, the award would have been multiple times that. It seems that if it's instead the actions of a scumbag, it's worthy of a far smaller award.

Could be wrong but think the victim would be entitled to take a civil case as well.

Skylinehead

blanch152 wrote: »

Is Diarmuid Connolly elected by the people to his unpaid position? No.

This councillor is elected by the people to his well-paid position.

Big difference.

I mean, I'm no fan of SF at all, but what does that have to do with custodial sentences?

We are all equal under the law.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/sf-councillor-who-knocked-out-victims-teeth-escapes-jail-sentence-38583536.html


"A Sinn Féin councillor (.............) that she will.

If Sinn Fein dissappeared off the face of the earth, what do you reckon would fill that massive void in your life?

Dravokivich

blanch152 wrote: »

Is Diarmuid Connolly elected by the people to his unpaid position? No.

This councillor is elected by the people to his well-paid position.

Big difference.

I didn't think councillors were well paid.

Rows Grower

Icemancometh wrote: »

tjhook wrote: »

Although you could argue for a custodial sentence, I wouldn't have pushed for one.

But I'm surprised at the small sum awarded. If the same injuries had been a result of a sign falling in a train station, the award would have been multiple times that. It seems that if it's instead the actions of a scumbag, it's worthy of a far smaller award.

Could be wrong but think the victim would be entitled to take a civil case as well.

Of course he is and the fact that it has been proven and accepted by another court will make his claim for compensation more straight forward.

blanch152

Skylinehead wrote: »

I mean, I'm no fan of SF at all, but what does that have to do with custodial sentences?

We are all equal under the law.

The question was whether I thought Jim Gavin should fire Connolly, like I suggested Mary-Lou should fire the councillor, not about custodial sentences.

Sleeper12

blanch152 wrote:

This is unbelievable. Just because someone is a councillor, they shouldn't be treated leniently by the courts. A fine of €7,500 for knocking someone's teeth out is a complete disgrace. A complete thug who gets away without a jail sentence.

Believe it or not this is a normal sentence for someone with a clean record. I'm not a SF fan myself but I think you are making something out of nothing on this.

I honestly don't think he got special treatment because he's a politician

Skylinehead

blanch152 wrote: »

The question was whether I thought Jim Gavin should fire Connolly, like I suggested Mary-Lou should fire the councillor, not about custodial sentences.

Well if you're going down that road then Diarmuid Connolly represents the people of Dublin, didn't do it very well when he assaulted someone, I don't see much of a difference.

And you were complaining about the courts and lenient sentences so that statement does not add up.

blanch152

Skylinehead wrote: »

Well if you're going down that road then Diarmuid Connolly represents the people of Dublin, didn't do it very well when he assaulted someone, I don't see much of a difference.

And you were complaining about the courts and lenient sentences so that statement does not add up.

Do you think the man is fit to be a councillor?

Or are you just dragging Diarmuid Connolly into the conversation to muddy the waters?

blanch152

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Believe it or not this is a normal sentence for someone with a clean record. I'm not a SF fan myself but I think you are making something out of nothing on this.

I honestly don't think he got special treatment because he's a politician

This was pre-medidated, it wasn't something that happened in a bar or something. He deliberately went round to his ex-partner's house and assaulted her new partner.

For example, Diarmuid Connolly's case was heard in the District Court because of the circumstances of that case, which the DPP saw as being at a lower level, yet the punishment for the councillor, in a case held at the higher Circuit Court, was similar, despite the elements of pre-medidation, lack of remorse and lying to the Court that applied to the councillor.

Having looked at the example thrown up by the whataboutery merchants, I am more convinced that the councillor was dealt with easily.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you think the man is fit to be a councillor?

Or are you just dragging Diarmuid Connolly into the conversation to muddy the waters?

Her's more highlighting your shinner obsession and double standard, I would have thought.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

Is Diarmuid Connolly elected by the people to his unpaid position? No.

This councillor is elected by the people to his well-paid position.

Big difference.

Oh no blanch they are almost identical cases- a violent assault leaving the victim needing surgery. Everyone is equal before the law so there is no difference here.

Tell me did you call for Diamuid Connolly to be imprisoned and dropped from the Dublin GAA team on the thread over there? I think we both know the answer to that one but feel free to link me to the post where you called for this and I'll admit I'm wrong.

It seems that thuggery is fine for you when Connolly is your thug and you dont want Dublins best player dropped from the team and are willing to look the other way but when a Shinner is involved you start a thread full of outrage. And werent you also defending Fine Gael TD Sean Conlon smashing a pint glass over someones face? So just the Sinn Fein thuggery that counts then, its fine when Dublin GAA players and Fine Gael TDs do it. Double standards are clearly at play here and its pretty transparent.

For the record I believe the SF Cllr, the Fine Gael TD and Diarmuid Connolly should all of gotten prison time. I'm not selective in who should face justice for being a scumbag.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

Oh no blanch they are almost identical cases- a violent assault leaving the victim needing surgery. Everyone is equal before the law so there is no difference here.

Tell me did you call for Diamuid Connolly to be imprisoned and dropped from the Dublin GAA team on the thread over there? I think we both know the answer to that one but feel free to link me to the post where you called for this and I'll admit I'm wrong.

It seems that thuggery is fine for you when Connolly is your thug and you dont want Dublins best player dropped from the team and are willing to look the other way but when a Shinner is involved you start a thread full of outrage. And werent you also defending Fine Gael TD Sean Conlon smashing a pint glass over someones face? So just the Sinn Fein thuggery that counts then, its fine when Dublin GAA players and Fine Gael TDs do it. Double standards are clearly at play here and its pretty transparent.

For the record I believe the SF Cllr, the Fine Gael TD and Diarmuid Connolly should all of gotten prison time. I'm not selective in who should face justice for being a scumbag.

Sorry, I have already pointed out the differences between the two cases.

The DPP brought the lesser one (Connolly) to the District Court and the more serious one (the councillor) to the Circuit Court. Pre-meditation, lack of remorse and lying to the court were also factors in the councillor case.

blanch152

Odhinn wrote: »

Her's more highlighting your shinner obsession and double standard, I would have thought.

Turning the OP into the story is one way of deflecting from the issues raised.

Sleeper12

blanch152 wrote:

This was pre-medidated, it wasn't something that happened in a bar or something. He deliberately went round to his ex-partner's house and assaulted her new partner.

Again I state that this is not an unusual sentence for a first offence. He did get a 2.5 year suspended sentence. If he doesn't keep the peace for X amount of years he will automatically be sent to prison for 2.5 years.

This happens almost daily in Irish courts. I understand saying that it is not tough enough (I agree with that statement) but its utter nonsense to suggest that it's a lower than usual sentence because he's a politician. He's not even a real politician. He is a local Councillor.

A minister for justice refusing to give a breath sample at a mandatory check point & going unchallenged is a worthy story because if I had asthma & refused to give a breath test I would be taken to the station.

Thread titled needs to be changed because the sentence has nothing to do with the fact that he is a SF Councillor

kowloon

Would that compensation even cover the cost of implants for the missing teeth?

Skylinehead

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you think the man is fit to be a councillor?

Or are you just dragging Diarmuid Connolly into the conversation to muddy the waters?

No, I don't think he is. Should be sacked. As should Connolly. Who I didn't even bring up, can you please keep up with the conversation?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/sf-councillor-who-knocked-out-victims-teeth-escapes-jail-sentence-38583536.html


"A Sinn Féin councillor who attacked his ex-wife's partner in a drunken rage, resulting in the loss of three of his teeth, avoided jail and was ordered to pay his victim €7,500."


This is unbelievable. Just because someone is a councillor, they shouldn't be treated leniently by the courts. A fine of €7,500 for knocking someone's teeth out is a complete disgrace. A complete thug who gets away without a jail sentence.

"In his victim impact statement which was read to the court, Mr Greene said he had suffered a loss of earnings, dental costs of €3,740, and the loss of three teeth which left it impossible for him to maintain a simple conversation."

How do people like this get elected? Why do judges go so easy on them?

We have national outrage over a few hundred in over-claimed expenses, yet a councillor can leave someone needing dentures in a pre-meditated attack and it passes in the media with little comment. Even Mick Wallace robbing his employees pensions, defrauding the taxpayer and playing ducks and drakes with the banks to avoid his debts, pales into comparison with the likes of this. The media and commentators have a lot to answer for when they ignore or play down this type of behaviour.

Will Mary-Lou do the decent thing and expel this thug from her party and ask him to stand down? I have little hope that she will.

And here we have the real reason for the thread. Didn't see any Green Party folk on the list, suprised you're not siding with the tax payer. At what level is tax payer money important? How many times should one politician be caught on the make before they deserve criticism?

It was no glassing in the face but yeah, nobody should vote for these people. Some wanted that FG lad sent down, some kept side tracking and dismissing the victims claims. Not so here......

You even got Mick Wallace in, Paul Murphy for the triple?

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Turning the OP into the story is one way of deflecting from the issues raised.

"deflecting", eh?

We have national outrage over a few hundred in over-claimed expenses, ......................

Plumbthedepths

I find it hilarious when someone starts a thread to foster outrage and it completely backfires on them.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

Sorry, I have already pointed out the differences between the two cases.

The DPP brought the lesser one (Connolly) to the District Court and the more serious one (the councillor) to the Circuit Court. Pre-meditation, lack of remorse and lying to the court were also factors in the councillor case.

Ok seeing as you avoided the question as to whether or not you called for Diarmuid Connolly to be imprisoned and dropped from the Dublin GAA team I will presume I am right- you didnt call for this at all because you knew well it would have a profound effect on Dublins chances at winning the All Ireland. Thats fine, its all I needed to know so you're free to continue on with the faux outrage on the Shinner guy while not applying the same standards to Connolly. They're both scumbags its just one of them is your scumbag.

One eyed Jack

blanch152 wrote: »

This is unbelievable. Just because someone is a councillor, they shouldn't be treated leniently by the courts. A fine of €7,500 for knocking someone's teeth out is a complete disgrace. A complete thug who gets away without a jail sentence.

...

Will Mary-Lou do the decent thing and expel this thug from her party and ask him to stand down? I have little hope that she will.

I don’t think he was treated leniently at all, he was still fined €7,500 and a suspended sentence after pleading guilty. If he had plead not guilty then by all means he should have the book thrown at him.

Will Mary-Lou do the decent thing? Mary-Lou has never done the decent thing in her life, so I don’t expect these circumstances to be any different. He was elected by the way in a democratic election, so it was ordinary people who voted for him, and not like he received any special treatment because he was a councillor, or even a Sinn Fein councillor at that. His politics have nothing to do with the story.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And here we have the real reason for the thread. Didn't see any Green Party folk on the list, suprised you're not siding with the tax payer. At what level is tax payer money important? How many times should one politician be caught on the make before they deserve criticism?

It was no glassing in the face but yeah, nobody should vote for these people. Some wanted that FG lad sent down, some kept side tracking and dismissing the victims claims. Not so here......

You even got Mick Wallace in, Paul Murphy for the triple?

So you think a politician claiming a few euro in extra expenses is more worthy of opprobrium than a politician in a pre-meditated assault that results in his victim requiring dentures?

If them's your standards, them's your standards.

blanch152

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I find it hilarious when someone starts a thread to foster outrage and it completely backfires on them.

You are assuming I expected outrage at the councillor.

The fact that it inspired the opposite is not surprising but saddening. All too predictable.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

So you think a politician claiming a few euro in extra expenses is more worthy of opprobrium than a politician in a pre-meditated assault that results in his victim requiring dentures?

If them's your standards, them's your standards.

So its ok to stroke "a few euro". Under a grand? Two grand?

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

You are assuming I expected outrage at the councillor.

The fact that it inspired the opposite is not surprising but saddening. All too predictable.

Others have dealt with your bias, no need for me to add to their comments.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

So you think a politician claiming a few euro in extra expenses is more worthy of opprobrium than a politician in a pre-meditated assault that results in his victim requiring dentures?

If them's your standards, them's your standards.

It'll be cents the next time you mention it

I think both require our attention.
Can you only be outraged at one thing at a time? Oh, wait we don't know your stance on Bailey's shenanigans outside of them, (yes plural now) not warranting attention.

And there you go. Classic Blanch. Ask me a loaded question and criticise me on an answer you gave to your own question. Brilliant

blanch152

Odhinn wrote: »

So its ok to stroke "a few euro". Under a grand? Two grand?

Where did I say it was ok to stroke a few euro? This thread is contrasting the outrage over a politician wrongly claiming a few euro as opposed to the outrage over a politician going round to someone's house and knocking their teeth out.

It is clear to any normal person which is the more serious offence, but boards is different. As I said already, saddened but not surprised.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Others have dealt with your bias, no need for me to add to their comments.

Can you not bring yourself to call for the councillor's resignation? Surely knocking the teeth out of your ex-partner's new partner is reason enough to resign?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It'll be cents the next time you mention it

I think both require our attention.
Can you only be outraged at one thing at a time? Oh, wait we don't know your stance on Bailey's shenanigans outside of them, (yes plural now) not warranting attention.

And there you go. Classic Blanch. Ask me a loaded question and criticise me on an answer you gave to your own question. Brilliant

Both require our attention, but one is a serious criminal offence and the other is not.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

Where did I say it was ok to stroke a few euro? This thread is contrasting the outrage over a politician wrongly claiming a few euro as opposed to the outrage over a politician going round to someone's house and knocking their teeth out.

It's now a thread about how you think abusing tax payers funding is no big deal. How much do they have to stroke before you think it becomes a problem?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Both require our attention, but one is a serious criminal offence and the other is not.

Why use one to dismiss the other? It's very odd. They are completely unrelated.
You are literally trying to play down one by comparing it to the other.
Why are you not only too disinterested in the latest shenanigans of Bailey and co. to post in any of the threads with an opinion, but bothered enough to try dismiss it with completely unrelated whataboutery in a thread you clearly set up for the task? Not very Green at all Blanch. More of a bluey hue off of it.

now how did i know matt would be taking a contrary line on this, hmmm

Guy:Incognito

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Believe it or not this is a normal sentence for someone with a clean record.

It shouldnt be though.

If you are the first person someone attacks they dont get punished anywhere near as much as for the next person. Youre not really getting justice.

Deliberately choosing to attack someone should result in at least a few weeks in jail imo.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why use one to dismiss the other? It's very odd. They are completely unrelated.
You are literally trying to play down one by comparing it to the other.
Why are you not only too disinterested in the latest shenanigans of Bailey and co. to post in any of the threads with an opinion, but bothered enough to try dismiss it with completely unrelated whataboutery in a thread you clearly set up for the task? Not very Green at all Blanch. More of a bluey hue off of it.

This thread is about the pre-meditated assault by a councillor of his ex-partner's new partner, leaving the man with no front teeth.

Yet, you only deem it worthy of attention. Are you refusing to engage in the politics of condemnation, by any chance?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This thread is about the pre-meditated assault by a councillor of his ex-partner's new partner, leaving the man with no front teeth.

Yet, you only deem it worthy of attention. Are you refusing to engage in the politics of condemnation, by any chance?

I agreed with your comments. Nobody should vote for these people.
I've no issue with you being outraged, it's terrible behaviour.

My sticking points was your awkward 'nothing to see here' Government propaganda rant that followed.
You won't post an opinion on Bailey but will criticise others who do. That thread closed, she pops up again, so rather than either defend her or condemn her, you set up this thread, with a genuine premise, but use it to cover for Bailey, is all.

You’re right, blanch. Judges do give politicians an easier ride.

A former Fine Gael TD escaped a custodial sentence but was fined €750 at a special sitting of the District Court in Monaghan today after he was convicted for a pub assault at his family-owned premises in Co Monaghan last year.

Sean Conlan, a 42-year-old solicitor of Main Street, Ballybay, was convicted of unlawfully assaulting and causing harm to Enda Duffy of Annahia, Ballybay, at the premises in Ballybay.

He was also found guilty of using a broken pint glass during the incident.

I suppose how easy a ride depends on which party you are affiliated with.

padd b1975

blanch152 wrote: »

This thread is about the pre-meditated assault by a councillor of his ex-partner's new partner, leaving the man with no front teeth.

Sloppy seconds do come with a certain amount of risk.

Anyway, looking on the bright side, he's now got his Christmas party piece sorted.

"All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth! my two front teeth!"

Sleeper12

Guy:Incognito wrote:

It shouldnt be though.

I totally agree with you. My only point is that this SF councilor didn't get special treatment. I am not a SF voter. Thread title should be changed to how everyone gets such a low sentence

blanch152

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

You’re right, blanch. Judges do give politicians an easier ride.



I suppose how easy a ride depends on which party you are affiliated with.

Again, like the Diarmuid Connolly misdirection thrown into this thread earlier on, the Sean Conlan incident was dealt with in the District Court, whereas more serious cases - such as the one subject of this thread - are dealt with in the Circuit Court.

By definition, the offence in this case has been deemed more serious. It is not difficulty to understand why. It was pre-meditated, it involved a form of domestic violence, and it resulted in serious permanent injury.

I am entitled to take a view that cases of assault dealt with in the District Court are less serious than those in the Circuit Court. However, it also should be remembered that in the case of Conlan, he was gone from Fine Gael before his case went to court and was subsequently rejected by the electorate as an independent candidate which is a pretty good outcome in my opinion. It remains to be seen whether we will see Mr. Richardson suffer the same fate.