If this had happened in a shop?

6o9fv7jpreb180

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0126/1192103-edmund-dunican-court/

Link to a case where someone held his ex-wife and barrister in a court room for 17 minutes with a fake bomb and gun. No doubt a horrible experience for the victims and handed a 8 year sentence with 2 suspended. Firstly, I have no sympathy for him.

But my point is this: There was a judge and barrister involved. If this man had held up 2 people in a shop or office in a similar fashion, would he have received an 8 year sentence? I think not.

We all hear "judges are out of touch with reality". I think the sentence here reflects this. When it is members of their own profession, harsh sentence. When it is ordinary Joe affected, not such harsh sentencing.

Just my two cents, or maybe I'm way off the mark.

RobbieTheRobber

It is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

So this sentence for was somewhere in the middle of what he could have got. Hardly meets the definition for harsh.

Edit:

Judge Ryan reduced a sentence of 11 years to eight years after noting a number of mitigating factors including Dunican’s remorse and his state of mind at the time. Fiona Murphy SC, defending, had told the court that Dunican felyt at the time this was his only course of action.


The judge backdated the sentence to the day of the offence, as Dunican has been in custody since. She suspended the final two years on condition that he be of good behaviour and have no contact whatsoever with the three victims.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-jailed-for-holding-up-court-with-fake-pistol-and-hoax-bomb-1.4468203

MrMusician18

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

It is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

So this sentence for was somewhere in the middle of what he could have got. Hardly meets the definition for harsh.

Edit:



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-jailed-for-holding-up-court-with-fake-pistol-and-hoax-bomb-1.4468203

8 years with two suspended was a harsh sentence for someone that clearly had a mental breakdown.

People have gotten a lot less for armed robbery

Birneybau

A court of law is a somewhat different place to a shop.

Donald Trump

Attacking the court is a more serious than attacking a shop.

If you attack the court you are attacking the judicial system, and by extension, attacking the state.

RobbieTheRobber

MrMusician18 wrote: »

8 years with two suspended was a harsh sentence for someone that clearly had a mental breakdown.

People have gotten a lot less for armed robbery

Back dated to when the offence took place in 2018.

6o9fv7jpreb180

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-who-threatened-and-falsely-imprisoned-his-ex-wife-jailed-for-two-years-36522246.html

Man holds wife against her will for 2 hours. Threatened her with a knuckle duster and gun. Stand off with gardaí. 2 years.

Quick google search. One of the first cases that appeared.

I'm not saying the man in the original case didnt deserve a 6 year sentence. What I'm saying it seems very harsh when compared to sentences handed out for all types of crimes. I just think if the exact situation had occurred with non-legal professions, the sentencing would not be as harsh

nolivesmatter

Birneybau wrote: »

A court of law is a somewhat different place to a shop.

Not when it comes to value of the lives in it which I think is the OPs point.

How does a man, whom at one point, ran a business and employed 20 people, end up taking people hostage with apparent lethal weapons?



The human condition is an enigma sometimes.

Gregor Samsa

Treasure Harsh Ammunition wrote: »

Man holds wife against her will for 2 hours. Threatened her with a knuckle duster and gun. Stand off with gardaí. 2 years.

You need a bit more information than that before being able to compare the two regarding the severity of the sentences. Like, what were the actual charges in both cases for a start.

It's like trying to compare two situations where "man kills other man". One gets a suspended sentence, one gets life, and you could say that one is more lenient or more stringent than the other - but the comparison is meaningless without taking the actual charges in both cases into account (manslaughter or murder). The devil's in the details, and that's what gets thrashed out in courts, both at the trial and the sentencing - the details.

Treasure Harsh Ammunition

Treasure Harsh Ammunition wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0126/1192103-edmund-dunican-court/

Link to a case where someone held his ex-wife and barrister in a court room for 17 minutes with a fake bomb and gun. No doubt a horrible experience for the victims and handed a 8 year sentence with 2 suspended. Firstly, I have no sympathy for him.

But my point is this: There was a judge and barrister involved. If this man had held up 2 people in a shop or office in a similar fashion, would he have received an 8 year sentence? I think not.

We all hear "judges are out of touch with reality". I think the sentence here reflects this. When it is members of their own profession, harsh sentence. When it is ordinary Joe affected, not such harsh sentencing.

Just my two cents, or maybe I'm way off the mark.

The lads behind the counter in your average city-centre Spar wouldn't even blink at carry-on like that.

Rezident

Deleted User wrote: »

How does a man, whom at one point, ran a business and employed 20 people, end up taking people hostage with apparent lethal weapons?



The human condition is an enigma sometimes.

The Irish Family Law System. 80% of divorces are now initiated by the female as she will "win":

• the children
• the house
• the assets
• future earnings
• anything else that is left

No need to work through your problems anymore, just divorce and take everything (if you're female). I can imagine a typical female friend's advice when her friend has marital troubles: 'you know, if you leave him you will get everything'...



Whereas many men just commit suicide, it would appear this man took a different course of action.

Does anyone still labour under the delusion that the Irish Family Law system is not significantly biased against men?

Rezident

Treasure Harsh Ammunition wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0126/1192103-edmund-dunican-court/

Link to a case where someone held his ex-wife and barrister in a court room for 17 minutes with a fake bomb and gun. No doubt a horrible experience for the victims and handed a 8 year sentence with 2 suspended. Firstly, I have no sympathy for him.

But my point is this: There was a judge and barrister involved. If this man had held up 2 people in a shop or office in a similar fashion, would he have received an 8 year sentence? I think not.

We all hear "judges are out of touch with reality". I think the sentence here reflects this. When it is members of their own profession, harsh sentence. When it is ordinary Joe affected, not such harsh sentencing.

Just my two cents, or maybe I'm way off the mark.

Do we know the facts of the case though? These are always done in secret courts so we don't know if it was just the usual bias against men in family law or a particularly egregious case. If you continue with such blatant injustice against men and fathers in family law, what do you expect? It is going to get much worse than this if you keep taking babies away from loving fathers for no good reason. Family Law solicitors have been known to encourage false allegations if they are not winning, then it just your word against hers, and mothers will win 95% of these cases anyway so there is not even the illusion of justice in family law.



These family law solicitors will sometimes 'use the kids against you'. Mothers can openly break Court Orders repeatedly and will not get jailed for it whereas a father will be jailed for the second breach of a Court Order. One angry mother and her solicitor can make a mockery of the Irish legal system and repeatedly break Court Orders and do so regularly, as they know a Judge will not want to jail a mother with small kids.



You probably would not believe how evil some family law solicitors can be. There is a reason why psychopaths thrive as lawyers, as they have no empathy. I know one solicitor who had to stop working in family law as she said it was making her physically sick what they do to fathers (and ultimately children) regularly. Then the kids grow up with a 96% probability of mental health problems, 5 times more likely to commit suicide, increased risk of anti-social behaviour, teenage pregnancy, criminality. Parental alienation is child abuse.



The knowledge that the mother will always win, no matter what she does, no matter how poor her conduct, no matter how many times she has broken the Court Order, does not bring out the best behaviour in some mothers or their solicitors. There is no deterrent and no credible threat of enforcement (again the mother). Meanwhile, the fathers are killing themselves in droves every year and nothing changes. About 130 fathers per year in Ireland and thousands more in the UK every year.



What would you do if your babies were taken away from you for no good reason?

CrazyFather1

Treasure Harsh Ammunition wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0126/1192103-edmund-dunican-court/

Link to a case where someone held his ex-wife and barrister in a court room for 17 minutes with a fake bomb and gun. No doubt a horrible experience for the victims and handed a 8 year sentence with 2 suspended. Firstly, I have no sympathy for him.

But my point is this: There was a judge and barrister involved. If this man had held up 2 people in a shop or office in a similar fashion, would he have received an 8 year sentence? I think not.

We all hear "judges are out of touch with reality". I think the sentence here reflects this. When it is members of their own profession, harsh sentence. When it is ordinary Joe affected, not such harsh sentencing.

Just my two cents, or maybe I'm way off the mark.

Do you have anything to confirm a sentence would be different in a shop? any other case very similar to compare?

MrMusician18

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Do you have anything to confirm a sentence would be different in a shop? any other case very similar to compare?

4.5 years with the last two suspended and backdated
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30979985.html

Treasure Harsh Ammunition

Treasure Harsh Ammunition wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0126/1192103-edmund-dunican-court/

Link to a case where someone held his ex-wife and barrister in a court room for 17 minutes with a fake bomb and gun. No doubt a horrible experience for the victims and handed a 8 year sentence with 2 suspended. Firstly, I have no sympathy for him.

But my point is this: There was a judge and barrister involved. If this man had held up 2 people in a shop or office in a similar fashion, would he have received an 8 year sentence? I think not.

We all hear "judges are out of touch with reality". I think the sentence here reflects this. When it is members of their own profession, harsh sentence. When it is ordinary Joe affected, not such harsh sentencing.

Just my two cents, or maybe I'm way off the mark.

Its not the same as a shop. Its the cornerstone of the justice system. Its more important than a shop

MrMusician18

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Its not the same as a shop. Its the cornerstone of the justice system. Its more important than a shop

Easy to say when it's not you in the shop though.

CrazyFather1

MrMusician18 wrote: »

4.5 years with the last two suspended and backdated
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30979985.html

Robbery v someone holding with fake bomb

TheBoyConor

A miniumum sentence of 5 years. Is that a minimum custodial sentence or just a sentence which can be suspended in part or get remission.

But i am shocked that he only got 6 years costodial sentence for holding up a court! is that not the highest form of contempt against the justice system and the state. Try that in any other european country and you'll be going away for probably 20 years. Try it in the USA and you'll have a long grey beard before you ever see freedom again.....and that is if the police don't burst into the court room and shoot you stone dead on the spot.

He will probably get remission and be out in 3 years. 4 tops. No way will he be in jail for 6 years.

Just goes to show that you can literally do whatever the hell you want in this country and you'll have little or no consequences.

saabsaab

I recall that a man got a dole office evacuated by going in with a fake explosive suicide vest a few years ago. Gardai came and he was taken away after a negotiator spoke to him. I don't think he was held for long.

TheBoyConor

Was he jailed, or did they just let him go after?

saabsaab

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Was he jailed, or did they just let him go after?

As far as I know he was just let go.

TheBoyConor

great little country

MrMusician18

TheBoyConor wrote: »

A miniumum sentence of 5 years. Is that a minimum custodial sentence or just a sentence which can be suspended in part or get remission.

But i am shocked that he only got 6 years costodial sentence for holding up a court! is that not the highest form of contempt against the justice system and the state. Try that in any other european country and you'll be going away for probably 20 years. Try it in the USA and you'll have a long grey beard before you ever see freedom again.....and that is if the police don't burst into the court room and shoot you stone dead on the spot.

He will probably get remission and be out in 3 years. 4 tops. No way will he be in jail for 6 years.

Just goes to show that you can literally do whatever the hell you want in this country and you'll have little or no consequences.

The man had a breakdown and no one was in any danger, 8 years was way ott for this.

Contrast this with an actual armed robbery with real actual guns getting effectively time served and it tells you one thing: the feelings of distress of those involved in the courts is far more important than actual harm caused by criminals to the plebians.

A republic of equals eh. Great little country indeed.

Overheal

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Not when it comes to value of the lives in it which I think is the OPs point.

Equal in that regard but enhanced in that you are in a court house. Seems odd to suggest that isn’t an enhancement to the underlying crime.

TheBoyConor

So he is getting 6. Oh and it is backdated to the day of the offence which was 2 years ago, so now his sentence is down to 4 years from now.
Oh, and lets say he does a few courses inside, and gets good behaviour. There is another third of the sentence, 2 years, shaved off.
So he is only going to do 2 years. 2 years for bringing a realistic gun and a pipe bomb into a courtroom, taking hostages and threatening the judge and barristers.

It doesn't matter in my view if it was a real or fake gun and bomb. Either way, the intent was the same - to terrorise, take hostages, to put people in fear of their lives, to disrupt and obstruct the administration of justice, give a GIANT fúck you to the Judiciary and the State. It was an attack on one of the pillars of the Republic. He is getting away, very very lightly indeed.

He is damn lucky he is still breathing and that he wasn't shot stone dead on the spot by the ARU. That would be the outcome I would bet on if someone were to try this in say France or Poland or any other country that doesn't suffer fools lightly.

If he tried this in the USA, he would be going to a penitentiary for a long, long, long time. If, if, he wasn't shot stone dead by a SWAT police team.

McCrack

Agree with above

It's a nasty and despicable act. He can put on that show in a courtroom you can guess what hes like with his ex wife behind doors

**** him

chrissb8

Birneybau wrote: »

A court of law is a somewhat different place to a shop.

A person is a person though regardless no?

ohnonotgmail

TheBoyConor wrote: »

So he is getting 6. Oh and it is backdated to the day of the offence which was 2 years ago, so now his sentence is down to 4 years from now.
Oh, and lets say he does a few courses inside, and gets good behaviour. There is another third of the sentence, 2 years, shaved off.
So he is only going to do 2 years. 2 years for bringing a realistic gun and a pipe bomb into a courtroom, taking hostages and threatening the judge and barristers.

He has already served 2 years. He has been in custody since this happened. If he gets the standard 1/3rd remission on his 6 year sentence he will serve 2 further years so 4 years in prison.

McCrack

chrissb8 wrote: »

A person is a person though regardless no?

A lawyer is an officer of the court..an attack on that is an attack on the administration of Justice so no not everything or everyone are equal when it comes to sentencing

Similarly a garda murdered on duty is a capital crime and rightly so

XsApollo

TheBoyConor wrote: »

So he is getting 6. Oh and it is backdated to the day of the offence which was 2 years ago, so now his sentence is down to 4 years from now.
Oh, and lets say he does a few courses inside, and gets good behaviour. There is another third of the sentence, 2 years, shaved off.
So he is only going to do 2 years. 2 years for bringing a realistic gun and a pipe bomb into a courtroom, taking hostages and threatening the judge and barristers.

It doesn't matter in my view if it was a real or fake gun and bomb. Either way, the intent was the same - to terrorise, take hostages, to put people in fear of their lives, to disrupt and obstruct the administration of justice, give a GIANT fúck you to the Judiciary and the State. It was an attack on one of the pillars of the Republic. He is getting away, very very lightly indeed.

He is damn lucky he is still breathing and that he wasn't shot stone dead on the spot by the ARU. That would be the outcome I would bet on if someone were to try this in say France or Poland or any other country that doesn't suffer fools lightly.

If he tried this in the USA, he would be going to a penitentiary for a long, long, long time. If, if, he wasn't shot stone dead by a SWAT police team.

I am glad we are not the USA , if it was in the USA , the wife judge and barrister would have their heads blown off,it wouldn’t be a fake handgun and fake pipe bomb , it would be a fully automatic m16 and a rocket launcher of some type with enough ammo to hole up in the courthouse for a month.

I didn’t read the article but I presume since it his ex wife he is getting shafted by the family law Act in some way.

enricoh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How does a man, whom at one point, ran a business and employed 20 people, end up taking people hostage with apparent lethal weapons?



The human condition is an enigma sometimes.

The Celtic tiger calved, no builders paid him what they owed him. He was left owing a fortune, 100 phone calls a day from crowds looking for money and the brain just went on him apparently.
I did a bit of business with him before that n he was a decent bloke to deal with.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Easy to say when it's not you in the shop though.

I wasnt in any of the buildings so Im unsure what your point is. Some buildings are more important than others. Its just reality.

We like to think everything is equal but its not, even people arent.

6o9fv7jpreb180

I would like to think all citizens of the state would get treated the same... not "well a judge and the court were the vicitm, so we deal with those cases more severely".

At the end of the day, if myself and a judge were assaulted in the same way, I believe the person who assaulted the judge would get a harsher sentence. Which is fundamentally wrong IMO.

Calahonda52

Rezident wrote: »

The Irish Family Law System.
1: 80% of divorces are now initiated by the female as she will "win":

2:

• the children
• the house
• the assets
• future earnings
• anything else that is left

No need to work through your problems anymore, just divorce and take everything (if you're female). I can imagine a typical female friend's advice when her friend has marital troubles: 'you know, if you leave him you will get everything'...



Whereas many men just commit suicide, it would appear this man took a different course of action.

Does anyone still labour under the delusion that the Irish Family Law system is not significantly biased against men?

The first piece may be correct but we need evidence for the second one

Treasure Harsh Ammunition

Treasure Harsh Ammunition wrote: »

I would like to think all citizens of the state would get treated the same... not "well a judge and the court were the vicitm, so we deal with those cases more severely".

At the end of the day, if myself and a judge were assaulted in the same way, I believe the person who assaulted the judge would get a harsher sentence. Which is fundamentally wrong IMO.

that depends on if hes attacked because hes a judge. you are failing to see that crimes also carry mitigating circumstances.

a criminal act against an arm of the state is an attack on the state. I realise that wasnt this guys ultimate goal but he was trying to subvert the justice system and that my friend, leads to the collapse of society a lot quicker than attacking the local corner shop.

attacking the leader of the country in an attempt to change his policies is a lot worse than attacking a stranger for no reason. thats reality.

threeball

Judges only tend to care once it hits home. There is a judge in Dublin who was quite happy to let toe rags off with a slapped wrist for breaking into homes until her own home was targetted one night. Now if you come up in front of her you better hope you weren't burgling homes or you're getting the book thrown at you. Another one down in Laois was the same with drink driving until a family member got killed by a drink driver, after that it didn't matter whether you were a few mg over or you drank the bar dry.

McCrack

threeball wrote: »

Judges only tend to care once it hits home. There is a judge in Dublin who was quite happy to let toe rags off with a slapped wrist for breaking into homes until her own home was targetted one night. Now if you come up in front of her you better hope you weren't burgling homes or you're getting the book thrown at you. Another one down in Laois was the same with drink driving until a family member got killed by a drink driver, after that it didn't matter whether you were a few mg over or you drank the bar dry.

This is nonsense, drink driving carries set disqualification periods depending on levels so the judge has no discretion

threeball

threeball wrote: »

Judges only tend to care once it hits home. There is a judge in Dublin who was quite happy to let toe rags off with a slapped wrist for breaking into homes until her own home was targetted one night. Now if you come up in front of her you better hope you weren't burgling homes or you're getting the book thrown at you. Another one down in Laois was the same with drink driving until a family member got killed by a drink driver, after that it didn't matter whether you were a few mg over or you drank the bar dry.

manure. Name the judge

An Ri rua

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Easy to say when it's not you in the shop though.

That's a parochial view, to say the least.

Should they have special legislation for aggrieved parties, as against someone who would intentionally attack a pillar of the state? It's easy for posters here to knock judges. This isn't about a judge protecting a fellow judge. It's as important a ruling as if there was a challenge to the rule of law by our political arm.
Was the judge erring by a year or two? Who knows? Here, I mean. But I'm sure the judge knows. As do his legal peers.
Are fathers abused by the legal process here? Most definitely. But it has no bearing on the required sentencing by the judge. The judge had all the facts. We don't.
He was lucky not to be shot, just as George in Blanchardstown was, for threatening Gardaí. What saved him was his dummy bomb vest. Mental breakdown my arse, I've no doubt he was demented but he took a decision to bear arms and threaten (fake arms being irrelevant). Justice is being served.

Edit: if this had happened in a (cop)shop, the results would likely have been worse for him.