Martin Nolan strikes again

boetstark

Mod deletion

GM228

Sorry what?

I assume you are talking about today's suspended sentence he handed down?

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/suspended-sentence-for-man-28-who-viewed-and-distributed-child-pornography-964520.html

Note the article states:-

Judge Martin Nolan noted the Court of Criminal Appeal had indicated that even where possession and distribution is present in a case, the court could still consider a non-custodial sentence.

It's not mentioned, but I'm sure he is applying the principles set down by the DPP vs Alexiou [2003] 3 I.R and DPP Vs Mc Ginty [2007] 1 IR 633 Court of Criminal Appeal cases which establishes that a suspended sentence is often appropriate when striking a balance between the circumstances of the convicted person and the public interest, or more importantly he is applying the O'Keefe principle (a UK case principle) which was accepted into Irish law by the DPP vs Loving [2006] IECCA 28 Court of Criminal Appeal case which effectively held that a custodial sentences is the last appropriate sentence.

People are all too quick to bash the judiciary without understanding the reasoning behind their decisions and that there are accepted sentences (custodial and non-custodial) which are appropriate based on the unique circumstances of each case.

Mr. Justice Nolan correctly applied what is generally known as the O'Keefe principle.

L1011

I suspect its also a reference to the (significant) custodial sentence for the persistent online harasser yesterday, which seems at odds with suspended sentences for other things.

GM228

L1011 wrote: »

I suspect its also a reference to the (significant) custodial sentence for the persistent online harasser yesterday, which seems at odds with suspended sentences for other things.

5 years with 2 suspended, is that a significant custodial sentence based on the facts though?

L1011

GM228 wrote: »

5 years with 2 suspended, is that a significant custodial sentence based on the facts though?

Its significant compared to a fully suspended sentence. I wouldn't see it as the wrong outcome for that case itself; but realistically he has got a reputation for giving suspended sentences for what cases are reported at this stage.

GM228

L1011 wrote: »

Its significant compared to a fully suspended sentence. I wouldn't see it as the wrong outcome for that case itself; but realistically he has got a reputation for giving suspended sentences for what cases are reported at this stage.

Be that as it may, most people reporting such cases and slamming the judiciary don't fully understand the reasoning behind such and the various legal principles or tests at play.

To be a fair a fully suspended case vs a partially suspended case the previous day really are non comparable though, there's no significance in the difference to highlight because they are totally separate areas of the criminal law with different circumstances at play, different mitigating factors and different sentencing norms.

IMO, unless we are present at the case and know all the facts of the case etc. than media reporting (which is just a snapshot of the overall proceedings) is too little for someone to accurately criticise (or not) any aspect of a trial and it's outcome.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Be that as it may, most people reporting such cases and slamming the judiciary don't fully understand the reasoning behind such and the various legal principles or tests at play.

To be a fair a fully suspended case vs a partially suspended case the previous day really are non comparable though, there's no significance in the difference to highlight because they are totally separate areas of the criminal law with different circumstances at play, different mitigating factors and different sentencing norms.

IMO, unless we are present at the case and know all the facts of the case etc. than media reporting (which is just a snapshot of the overall proceedings) is too little for someone to accurately criticise (or not) any aspect of a trial and it's outcome.

with respect to the time and expertise expended in your responses, id imagine that the op and many others would look at the analysis of where the judge comes up with eg suspended sentence for eg a paedophile and still think its wrong.

that a judge or a student of law can justify it according to their trade does not in itself answer that qualm.

your arguing that a sentence may be correct will not convince anyone inclined to thinking it is wrong- theyre two quite different things.

boetstark

He handed down an 18 month custodial sentence to a 19 year old male. The offence was sexual intercourse with a 14 year old when he was 16. The incident was allegedly consensual.
No issue with the guilty, not guilty verdicts.
My issue is when a custodial sentence comes at a cost of approximately 87k euro per year to the taxpayer, please reserve such sentences for people who may be a danger to society.
He has allowed convicted paedophiles and recently a guy who seriously assaulted an innocent teenager, walk free with suspended sentences.
The above 19 year old and recently a 71 year old woman get custodial sentences. Mod deletion

NUTLEY BOY

+1 previous observations about Judge Nolan's sentencing being subject to and or informed by the views of the Court of Appeal.
In plain English, there is no point in imposing a sentence the severity of which is almost certainly going to be modified downwards by the CoA anyway.

Some people are just not willing to read past the sensationalist headlines without some basic analysis or understanding of the sentencing ratio.

No names, no pack drill, but I can think of at least two judges of the past in the Central Criminal Court who did explain how they were constrained by the ratio of the Court of Criminal Appeal - as it then was - when constructing a particular sentence.
I think that one of those judges used to refer to the CCA as containing greater minds .

Trite an observation as it may be sentencing is not a process akin to resolving an equation for uniquely correct values for x or y.
To a degree, sentencing is something of an art form in which judges have to balance conflicting issues and try to fashion a sentence that best suits the particularities of the instant case.
That is why I think that judges also do not like mandatory minimum sentences as they can corrupt judicial independence in constructing a sentence.

And finally, I think that discourse is somewhat demeaned by calling named members of the judiciary idiots.
You can always disagree vehemently with a verdict but that is a different matter entirely.

KWAG2019

To paraphrase a different area, law is far too serious a thing to be left to the lawyers. The explanations here are excellent expositions of how the legal system works at the moment. The O'Keefe precedent, the ratio, the appeal process. To those in the area these are their bread and butter and the outcomes are largely explicable in terms of existing rules, precedents and procedures.

The frustration of those within the system with those without who don't seem to "get it" is understandable but irrelevant. What is relevant is how that frustration without will reach a tipping point which will lead to a re-ordering of the systems and new precedents will be established. An interesting starting point would be the setting aside of O'Keeffe in particular types of case.

spurious

And again.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/it-is-unlikely-he-will-reoffend-man-38-caught-with-child-pornography-videos-gets-suspended-sentence-38783179.html

Eric Cartman

from looking it up I can find if you are in to child porn, money laundering, storing drugs or are a woman you'll be home before dinner , but if you send a few emails critiquing journalists who happen to be women or fall asleep during a burglary you get prison. its quite inconsistent.

Carawaystick

Eric Cartman wrote: »

from looking it up I can find if you are in to child porn, money laundering, storing drugs or are a woman you'll be home before dinner , but if you send a few emails critiquing journalists who happen to be women or fall asleep during a burglary you get prison. its quite inconsistent.

a year longer than the max if you lie about root veg...

boetstark

And he strikes again

Robbo

If this thread can actually discuss sentencing in a meaningful way (e.g. with reference to appeal court judgments, international comparators, O'Malley's text etc), it survives tomorrow. Otherwise, you're welcome to discuss is in AH Nua at their particular standard.

GM228

Robbo wrote: »

O'Malley's text etc

I recommend anyone who wants to slate the judiciary and handing down of sentences to read Professor O'Malley's Sentencing Law and Practice, 3rd Edition published by Round Hall, but somehow I suspect those who do won't be bothered...

Now I discussed as requested but I still think this judiciary bashing thread needs to be bashed itself

boetstark

GM228 wrote: »

I recommend anyone who wants to slate the judiciary and handing down of sentences to read Professor O'Malley's Sentencing Law and Practice, 3rd Edition published by Round Hall, but somehow I suspect those who do won't be bothered...

Now I discussed as requested but I still think this judiciary bashing thread needs to be bashed itself

I'm sure that legal precedent ó malleys sentencing blah blah blah is very comforting to parents of abused kids, kids lured into vans and exposed to a sicko w**King himself in front of her. I get it judges are bound by sentencing law, but as long as our judiciary hand down super lenient sentences, well criminals and sex offenders have nothing to fear.
But our hout koppe politicians intend fining a guy 2k and put his career at risk should he dare drive at 150kph on a motorway.
Apologise to moderators but I feel very passionate about how soft and pc Ireland is.

hullaballoo

One of the main guiding principles in sentencing is to apply the law dispassionately.

I think lawyers can sometimes come across as a bit obtuse when commenting on these matters because we are trained to dissociate from our perhaps more human reaction and be a little more cold and analytical. Goes with the job so to speak.

That's the source of conflict here and elsewhere in relation to matters such as sentencing. If you started this thread in CA/IMHO or AH it would undoubtedly rouse a right rabble and would have hundreds if not thousand of responses from equally passionate people but the point being made by the moderation above is that this is not such a forum.

This forum is for the most part populated and managed by lawyers or those with a keen interest and indeed very good knowledge of the law.

Of course like anyone else when we hear of horrific crimes there is a tendency to want severe punishment/retribution but there has to be balance to it and the other sentencing factors that we have studied and concern ourselves with come into play and temper that initial reaction.

So when we see the rules being applied as we know they ought to be, it doesn't give rise to outrage. What is more likely to give rise to outrage among lawyers is seeing a clearly very knowledgeable and experienced judge being lambasted for an almost impeccable application of the principles we know have to be applied. More likely still is the expression or implication that lawyers are to "blame" for what are perceived somewhat incorrectly as lenient sentences or a lack of sentencing options.

Andrew00

And again. This is getting out of hand.

Registered sex offender caught masterbating in front of a girl (15). 2 year sentence but Nolan ordered him not to serve any of it.

https://www.thejournal.ie/suspended-sentence-masturbating-schoolgirl-court-4938762-Dec2019/?amp=1

fritzelly

Andrew00 wrote: »

And again. This is getting out of hand.

Registered sex offender caught masterbating in front of a girl (15). 2 year sentence but Nolan ordered him not to serve any of it.

https://www.thejournal.ie/suspended-sentence-masturbating-schoolgirl-court-4938762-Dec2019/?amp=1

Is this man living on another planet or something?

invited the 15-year-old girl into his van after asking for directions. He then masturbated in front of her.

He texted her later to ask her to meet with him again that same evening. The girl agreed, got into his van again and he again masturbated in front of her

Nolan said while there was no certainty, it was probably unlikely that Smith would offend to this degree in the future

Andrew00

Mate how is this fella allowed to continue.

Its now numerous perverts hes letting away with crimes, daily.

Assetbacked

It is deeply concerning to see him unleashing so many depraved beasts back onto the streets to potentially offend again without having first served any punishment. A suspended sentence is absolutely zero punishment, which is utterly shocking in cases involving sexual offences and minors. Is there some level of accountability even for the judge themselves?

GM228

There are 37 other CC judges in the state.

Perhaps being Dublin based contributes to the reporting, but, ALL judges hand down these types of sentences.

donkeykong5

GM228 wrote: »

There are 37 other CC judges in the state.

Perhaps being Dublin based contributes to the reporting, but, ALL judges hand down these types of sentences.

No. Not the way he does.

GM228

donkeykong5 wrote: »

No. Not the way he does.

Perhaps not to the same extent, but ALL judges do hand down suspended sentences at times including for such offences.

donkeykong5

GM228 wrote: »

Perhaps not to the same extent, but ALL judges do hand down suspended sentences at times including for such offences.

Look him up. Its almost every case. Yet business men trying to save some money get 6 yeah 6 years in jail.

bunderoon

I can see some sort of Prime Time investigates in about 10 years time about this man.

Only way to get movement on this is to get an American late night talk host to mention Nolan.
Bring it to the worlds attention.

donkeykong5

bunderoon wrote: »

I can see some sort of Prime Time investigates in about 10 years time about this man.

Only way to get movement on this is to get an American late night talk host to mention Nolan.
Bring it to the worlds attention.

Why was petition ignored. In 10 years time no child in Ireland will be safe with the amount of paedophiles he let's off daily. Is he above the law as well.

fritzelly

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Why was petition ignored. In 10 years time no child in Ireland will be safe with the amount of paedophiles he let's off daily. Is he above the law as well.

Petitions do nothing - pointless exercise bar expressing your emotions and anger.

Plead guilty and Nolan thinks it means you will never re-offend again, even if you don't plead guilty he still thinks you will never re-offend

I'm sorry but anyone caught with child porn should be convicted as if they were the perpetrators - they are perpetuating the "industry". You don't accidentally download this stuff, you have to actively seek it out and from what I've read be accepted in to the group (this is not Google stuff but dark web stuff)

donkeykong5

fritzelly wrote: »

Petitions do nothing - pointless exercise bar expressing your emotions and anger.

Plead guilty and Nolan thinks it means you will never re-offend again, even if you don't plead guilty he still thinks you will never re-offend

I'm sorry but anyone caught with child porn should be convicted as if they were the perpetrators - they are perpetuating the "industry". You don't accidentally download this stuff, you have to actively seek it out and from what I've read be accepted in to the group (this is not Google stuff but dark web stuff)

But if you look back on all his cases he's ALWAYS LETTING FIlthy paedophiles off. Yet jails a family man for six years for vat messing around on food produce. So what danger is that family man to anyone. He was just greedy. But what f....ing danger are ALL THESE BASTARD PAEDOPHILES to young children. Plenty . Kids arnt safe whilst nolans guys are walking the streets.

Andrew00

Nolan & his cronies

GM228

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Why was petition ignored

You can't just fire a judge, it requires a joint resolution from both houses of the Oireachtas and can only constitutionally be done for "stated misbehaviour or incapacity", something which has never been legally defined.

Nermal

hullaballoo wrote: »

So when we see the rules being applied as we know they ought to be, it doesn't give rise to outrage. What is more likely to give rise to outrage among lawyers is seeing a clearly very knowledgeable and experienced judge being lambasted for an almost impeccable application of the principles we know have to be applied.

Obviously, most people fundamentally disagree with those principles.

They don't *have* to be applied, judges have made the decision to apply them.

People are understandably angry because they have had no say in them.

GM228

Nermal wrote: »

Obviously, most people fundamentally disagree with those principles.

They don't *have* to be applied, judges have made the decision to apply them.

People are understandably angry because they have had no say in them.

Certain principles and sentencing norms do have to be applied (they vary depending on circumstances especially the plea entered), when not followed properly the sentence is usually adjusted to what should be considered proper upon appeal.

You don't see the DPP appealing any unduly lenient sentences in these cases for a reason.

hullaballoo

Nermal wrote: »

Obviously, most people fundamentally disagree with those principles.

They don't *have* to be applied, judges have made the decision to apply them.

People are understandably angry because they have had no say in them.

Just wondering if you could list the principles in question that you so fundamentally disagree with?

And like many or dare I say it all laws, unsurprisingly they in fact do have to be applied by judges.

See my last post on the emotional response side of things. It's for that very reason we have lawyers and judges rather than submitting our societal problems to the will of an irrational and blood thirsty mob.

hullaballoo

Moderator: I have had to delete posts and issue a couple of bans over comments here that are totally unacceptable anywhere on this site never mind this forum which has stricter rules around civility and abuse.

There is, as pointed out above, also a requirment t engage in some semblance of legal discussion by engaging with legal principles and discussing relevant law or legal opinion on things like alternative approaches to sentencing for example.

This isn't the Say What You Like forum, it's Legal Discussion.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

Just wondering if you could list the principles in question that you so fundamentally disagree with?

This will present a problem for many (or indeed most if not all who slate such), you need to actually understand them before you can objectively disagree with them, otherwise just a misinformed opinion is presented.

CramCycle

GM228 wrote: »

You don't see the DPP appealing any unduly lenient sentences in these cases for a reason.

Have the DPP appealed any of his judgements to a higher court? As a matter of interest. I always thought that a slightly lenient sentence was given by some judges so that if it was appealed by the DPP or the defendant that the higher court would either stamp it as being appropriate or give scope to increase it rather than have it lessened.

Tow

CramCycle wrote: »

Have the DPP appealed any of his judgements to a higher court? As a matter of interest. I always thought that a slightly lenient sentence was given by some judges so that if it was appealed by the DPP or the defendant that the higher court would either stamp it as being appropriate or give scope to increase it rather than have it lessened.

Look up the 'Garlic Man', who got 6 years from Nolan for €1.6 of import duty fraud.

GM228

CramCycle wrote: »

Have the DPP appealed any of his judgements to a higher court? As a matter of interest. I always thought that a slightly lenient sentence was given by some judges so that if it was appealed by the DPP or the defendant that the higher court would either stamp it as being appropriate or give scope to increase it rather than have it lessened.

Unknown, but like many CC judges I'm sure there has been an appeal or two by the DPP.

GM228

Tow wrote: »

Look up the 'Garlic Man', who got 6 years from Nolan for €1.6 of import duty fraud.

His sentence was reduced to 2 years.

Whilst the original sentence was excessive people forget he was charged with multiple counts, it wasn't just a single offence. He was charged with 15 counts, pleaded guilty to 4 and sentenced for 2.

Robbo

GM228 wrote: »

His sentence was reduced to 2 years.

Whilst the sentence was excessive people forget he was charged with multiple counts, it wasn't just a single offence. He was charged with 15 counts, pleaded guilty to 4 and sentenced for 2.

A multi-million Euro international tax fraud perpetrated over a number of years yet somehow he's a folk hero because according to some it was just a mishap with a form.

I'm sure all their competitors who struggled or failed during the economic crisis feel great empathy for the mighty Garlic Man.

Assetbacked

The judge you want when you're accused of child abuse or possessing child born. Astonishing.

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-with-child-porn-given-suspended-sentence-4943658-Dec2019/

Eric Cartman

Assetbacked wrote: »

The judge you want when you're accused of child abuse or possessing child born. Astonishing.

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-with-child-porn-given-suspended-sentence-4943658-Dec2019/

saw that, masturbating infront of kids in shops and having child porn and gets to walk out. Whats nolans problem.

cobhguy28

He must of heard about this thread.

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-jailed-sexual-encounters-underage-girls-4944076-Dec2019/

"A SEPARATED MAN who had sexual encounters with three underage girls one year after he was caught with child pornography has been jailed for seven and a half years."

CIARAN_BOYLE

It seems obvious to me that Nolan seems to have a soft touch to first offenses and people with single charges (or multiple charges in a short period of time).

He has a harsher reaction to people charged with multiple counts over a longer period of time.

Generally I feel this principals are valid however in the specifics I feel the extent of these reactions may well go too far.