5 years for serial child molester with 29 offences

honirelandboy

Rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0624/1231116-david-barry/

Scout leader Molested 10 different boys and only gets 5 year.

What a joke our courts are.

Why do Irish judges love rapists and paedophiles so much?

GhostyMcGhost

2 months per offence ….
That’s after a 2 year reduction from 7 years down to 5

I really hope the DPP appeal. The guy should spend the rest of his life in prison which at 72 isn’t too long

suicide_circus

Should have got 5 years for that wig and 20 for abusing children

NoLuckLarry

Hopefully one of the childrens fathers will give him proper justice, should be force fed his own balls and hung off a ****ing bridge. Disgustingly weak sentence.

Oranage2

Would get more for 5e worth of weed

323

Will be out again in two years or less.

Awful. Took huge courage for those affected to come forward and this is the sentence handed down. Sickening.

crooked cockney villain

Oranage2 wrote: »

Would get more for 5e worth of weed

Not sure if satire or the demented ramblings of an addict.

It's quite strange to think, but I can't recall any Dail campaign in recent times with any party making serious promises about crime or increasing sentencing. I think the PD's may have done a bit in the past.

We do have a 10 year minimum sentence for posessing 10K or more worth of drugs, but it is all but never handed down as virtually every case can find some mitigating circumstance that puts it in the bin.

In fact is it my memory or did the country's judges all but threaten to go on strike when Michael McDowell raised the issue of crap sentencing?

SunnySundays

The way Sex Offenders and child molesters are treated in this country is a disgrace.

He preyed on young children over a 22 year period, refers to his ill health in court as reason not to serve a long sentence and only gets 5 years.

It's about time that all child molesters were automatically chemically castrated upon conviction and have to serve a sentence as they were carrying out the crime


His actions have a life long impact on his victims but only a 5 year impact on him.

I hope those he abused get some sense of justice from the fact he has been recognised now as the scum that he is and are getting on well with their own lives inspite of his actions.

The J Stands for Jay

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do Irish judges love rapists and paedophiles so much?

Because **** ******* **** ***** ****** ******. Simple really.

freshpopcorn

I'd have been in the cubs/scouts during that period and I'm fairly sure I remember that face from when groups met..(I could be wrong of course).
It's sad to think what could have being going on in the early 2000's when you look back.
He'd be very well known in Cork from what I know from his photography businesses.

Padraig Mor

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I'd have been in the cubs/scouts during that period and I'm fairly sure I remember that face from when groups met..(I could be wrong of course).
It's sad to think what could have being going on in the early 2000's when you look back.
He'd be very well known in Cork from what I know from his photography businesses.

Same here. Remember him well as he was one of the top dogs in the scouts in Cork when I was in them in the late 80s into early 90s. He was one parish over though so never really dealt with him directly. Never heard of any 'rumours' though. And yes, he is (was) VERY well known in Cork! If you graduated from UCC during most of the last few decades, his company took the pictures.

Mimon

Joke, should be a life sentence, no parole as he is a predator and will still be a danger when he gets out.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Oranage2 wrote: »

Would get more for 5e worth of weed

Made me laugh!

MontgomeryClift

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Same here. Remember him well as he was one of the top dogs in the scouts in Cork when I was in them in the late 80s into early 90s. He was one parish over though so never really dealt with him directly. Never heard of any 'rumours' though. And yes, he is (was) VERY well known in Cork! If you graduated from UCC during most of the last few decades, his company took the pictures.

The news articles don't mention his family situation. Was he ever married?

Padraig Mor

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

The news articles don't mention his family situation. Was he ever married?

Articles say yes and had kids but they split in mid 80s so just before the timeframe in question it seems. I was always under the impression some/all of his kids worked with him in the photography business though (as in, long after the separation), maybe I was wrong on that.

seamus

The reason for what appears to be small sentences is simply down to legislation. The law sets out the penalties available to the judge and s/he can't go over that.

The time of the offence also matters. Something is only a crime if it was a crime at the time it was done. You can't make something a crime and the retrospectively jail people for it. The same goes for sentencing. You can't increase the maximum sentence from 5 to 10 years and then retrospectively apply that to the offence.

The maximum sentence available to the judge is the one that was in force at the time the offence was committed.

So, in this example, the offences took place between 1986 and 2008. And we'll assume none of them are "rape", they're all sexual assault. This makes a difference, legally.

In 1986, the law was very loose on this, it was was a mish-mash of laws dating back to the 1800s. The typical sentence measured in months.

In 1990, the maximum penalty for sexual assault and indecent assault was set at 5 years.

In 1993 a special offence of "gross indecency" with males under 17 was created, with a penalty of two years. This was introduced when homosexuality was decriminalised. It's what made 17 the age of consent for gay men.

In 2006, sexual assault on a child under 15 was upped to carry a life sentence. If they're between 15 and 17, it carries a maximum penalty of 5 years, or 10 years if you're a person in authority. This was increased again in 2019.

So, you can see how the judge's options are somewhat limited. The guy wasn't convicted of rape, so a life sentence is off the table. We don't have the full details of the exact offences, but I would guess that the offence(s) that took place after 2006 were carried out on boys over 15, meaning that the maximum sentence available to the judge was ten years.

So, why not give him ten years? It's still complicated because each charge has to be assessed separately;

If I commit a very serious offence that carries only six months in jail, and ten years later commit a minor offence that carries up to 6 years in jail, the judge cannot give me six years in jail as punishment for the first offence. Because that would be retrospectively applying the law.

So if this guy's post-2006 offences were relatively "minor", then the judge must take that into account.

And the next obvious question - why concurrent sentencing, not consecutive? Well that's a whole other kettle of fish.

tastyt

Absolutely disgusting

If I was one of these people or a family member of a victim I would be so angry at this country now

I would genuinely find it very difficult not to feel like your on your own and take the law into your own hands