Laughable justice system once again..

So this one really grinds my gears.

An application by the State to jail a man who sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl after befriending her over Snapchat was rejected on Tuesday by the Court of Appeal.

he got a two year suspended sentence, was 19 at the time of the assaults. So statutory rape. The DPP made the application to incarcerate and it was rejected.

But I think it’s worth noting he not only knew she was underage after he did it he fooked off to England to avoid prosecution! But the poor crater this had a significant impact on his life..

and the girl he raped?? 😵‍💫

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/state-fails-in-bid-to-jail-man-who-sexually-assaulted-girl-14-he-met-on-snapchat-1.4785710#

ohnonotgmail

Not to be one of those people but there was no rape. he wasn't convicted of rape. Having said that a jail term would have been appropriate given her age and his foreknowledge of same.

EmmetSpiceland

Would be nice if perpetrators of these types of crime could be referred to as child rapists or pedophiles.

Was the same with that case about the family, and extended family, sexually assaulting their kids. They get away with being called “abusers”.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058230066/laughable-justice-system-once-again

It’s not clear that he actually knew her age.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540763#Comment_118540763

No 14 year old looks over the age of consent.

BorneTobyWilde

The Judge is the one with all the info, yet didn't jail him, is the judge then a pedophile?? I'm guessing everyone here would say no, yet if anyone here showed an understanding of why he didn't jail him they'd be labelled .

I can only guess the ages of the people involved are behind the reasoning,and the level of the assault, as in so so many EU countries the laws differ. So yea I can understand it, even if I don't agree with it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540763#Comment_118540763

Oh come off it

you can be assured he knew, why else did he run off to the UK? Just one more example of a soft justice system, the fact the DPP appealed to have him JAILED and it was still denied says it all. We know exactly what the weak link in the chain is, the judges.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540714#Comment_118540714

I don’t know if that’s the case?

“had pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting the girl, contrary to Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amended) Act 1990, at a hearing at the District Court, Midleton, Co Cork, in December 2020.”

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540835#Comment_118540835

section 2 is sexual assault not rape. Rape is section 4.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540835#Comment_118540835

Which is sexual.assault, not rape.

Not that it's better, but it's not rape.

@bubblypop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540872#Comment_118540872

Ah sorry my bad 😂

@bubblypop 110%, either way, he’s one of many people getting away way too easily with this type of shite.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540908#Comment_118540908

He is, no doubt, but statutory rape hasn’t been a thing in Irish law since 2006 -

Last May, the Supreme Court ruled in CC v Ireland that section 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 was unconstitutional because it did not afford defendants the right to claim that they had made an honest mistake as to the age of a victim.

A convicted statutory rapist appealed successfully his conviction on the grounds that he had not been afforded the defence of mistake of age.

The decision provoked a political crisis after a number of child rapists sought their freedom on the basis that the offence, because it had been struck down by the Supreme Court, was non-existent. Following the ruling, the Government announced it would hold a referendum on children's rights.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/statutory-rape-law-fiasco-led-to-drop-in-reporting-26276917.html

Judges only responsibility is to apply the law fairly in the interests of justice.

y0ssar1an22

"had pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting the girl, contrary to Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amended) Act 1990, at a hearing at the District Court, Midleton, Co Cork, in December 2020.

He also admitted to asking her to touch him, contrary to Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, and to contacting a child for the purposes of sexual exploitation, contrary to Section 7 of the same act, at the same hearing.

The man later fled the country following the incident on December 4th, 2018 and had been living in England before he returning to Ireland in July 2020."

based on the above, jail time is surely warranted.

"A full written judgement will be available at a later date, Mr Justice Edwards told the court."

there must be some mitigation in that written judgement is the only thing i can think of.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540824#Comment_118540824

You obviously don’t. Judges don’t make the criminal laws and the DPP has no special standing in courts. You got a problem with the laws then take it up with the people who make the laws - your local TD being your starting point. Making crap up and getting all upset when it does not work that way is not impressive and serves little point in debating it.

nj27

Open and shut death penalty case

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542924#Comment_118542924

Yawn.

Strumms

Open and shut appropriate sentence not administered.

victim of crimes just not being enabled with justice in this country and either is society.

there is an epidemic of incompetence in our criminal justice system…

ohnonotgmail

I'm struggling to understand what mitigation was applied that led to a possible 14 year sentence ending up as 2 years suspended.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542908#Comment_118542908

they are correct, the judge had options when sentencing…. He decided to play softball… the defendant sexually assaulted a 14 year old, convicted but he was let off…. An adult who sexually assaults a minor, a child gets to walk free…that’s appalling…..

The grave realisation in this country…the law protects the attacker, not the victim or society.

his victim was about 3 years from the age of consent.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542908#Comment_118542908

Are you seriously suggesting the DPP wouldn’t be acutely aware of the minimum & maximum sentences before appealing this?

The judge absolutely had more options than a 2 year suspended sentence, he sexually assaulted a child..

goldenmick

Prison sentencing aside, they should at the very least bring back the birch.

... and the stocks

... and torture

... and... errm... ducking in the millpond

oh, and let Ireland's biggest man shag him up the arse

Jequ0n

Why are you getting so upset if the article doesn’t even stipulate any details? He was obviously tried and given this sentence for a reason. I often lament articles not giving details that explain the decision, and that’s the reason I am always given.

goldenmick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543125#Comment_118543125

I think what gets people so angry is that whether it's rape, sexual assault, molestation or whatever... it's still perpetrated against a minor, and the laws are way, way too lax, as is the sentencing.

A child of that age should never have to endure something like that in her formative years and it could mentally scar her for life. Unless the chap who did it is mentally impaired (in which case he should be in an institution for a long, long time), a custodial sentence has to be THE ONLY option, otherwise what kind of message are we sending to others out there who have eyes on our children.

If it happened to any child of mine I would kill the fecker with my bare hands so I would.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543041#Comment_118543041

Law is the law, but when the chips are down I think the judge realizes this wasn't some brutal rape and murder by a stranger on a victim, by all accounts they had a foreseeable liaison, but in the eyes of the law, an unlawful one, and for sure typically it's the guy pulling the strings. No where in the whole of the EU is there an age of consent higher than Ireland. In Germany it's 14, for people up to the age of 21, so this meet up in Germany would not have been an issue, but of course assault is assault if that's what happened, but it's hard to judge that without the facts. But going by the judgement it looks like it was just he fact it was breaking the law.

Ireland has led in so many areas in past ten years, but when it comes to realistic sexual interaction between teenagers it's criminalized. I'm sure up and down the country there are countless couples between the ages of 14 and 19, should they all be thrown in jail for 14 years? I think you need to be realistic, that a 15 year old could be dating an 18 year old, a 16 year old, could be dating a 19 year old. It's very typical that a guy is slightly older that a girl when dating.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543164#Comment_118543164

I can understand the sentiment, so don’t get me wrong, but to actually do that wouldn’t undo what was done, and would only mean you’d be likely to do a hell of a lot longer behind bars than the other person who violated the law. It’s something you might want to think about before taking the sort of action you’d be wanting to take by way of exacting vengeance.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543193#Comment_118543193

we don't live in germany. they guy met up with a 14 year old for the purpose of sex. 19 year olds should not be shagging 14 year olds.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543193#Comment_118543193

Can you think now how this case might have come to the attention of the authorities?

You shouldn’t have to think too hard, and it would be the same in any other country where the circumstances would be similar where a complaint is made to the authorities by the victim or someone close to the victim.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543212#Comment_118543212

I don't know the details, like I mentioned. But no sex took place, he got hands on, maybe parents found out, police got involved, and the law kicks in. I'm only guessing it's why the judgement was what it was.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543225#Comment_118543225

Parents found out, got police involved, and no one truly knows the rest, what we do know is the law is the law, so of course the police act on that and bring charges. No one is arguing with that.☺️

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543164#Comment_118543164

Yeah I kind of get that, but I still think its quite telling how irate people get without knowing the actual circumstances.

”A child of that age should never have to endure something like that in her formative years and it could mentally scar her for life.”

I think part of the problem is that people like to forget that their teenage kids are not children any more, and that they have a life of their own that their parents don’t want to know about.

I don’t mean this particular case but attitudes in general. As stated above there will have been reasons for the sentence.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543266#Comment_118543266

No, the actual problem is that people who aren’t children any more, target children.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543266#Comment_118543266

the age of consent laws exist for a reason.

dxhound2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543125#Comment_118543125

The Times article is about an appeal against the leniency of that sentence. It says that a full written judgement will be given later. Maybe the details in that written judgement will change some minds, but probably not.

"On Tuesday, in an ex-tempore judgement delivered by Mr Justice John Edwards, presiding, sitting with Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy and Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, the three-judge court said it was not going to interfere in the sentence handed down by Judge Donnabháin.A full written judgement will be available at a later date, Mr Justice Edwards told the court".

From Courts.ie:

4. Hearing of the appeal

The court hears appeals every day during the court term. Each appeal is heard by three judges. They read the papers and submissions in advance of the hearing. The parties then make oral submissions to the court by reference to those papers and submissions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judges will either deliver judgment the same day (known as an ‘ex tempore’ judgment) or deliver judgment at a later date (known as a ‘reserved judgment’). The Court of Appeal Office will notify the parties in due course of the date the judges will deliver judgment if the judgment is reserved.

https://www.thejournal.ie/court-of-appeal-rejection-state-5666628-Jan2022/

honestly this is a very upsetting one to read and there’s absolutely no excuse for giving him no jail time for beating a 4 month old baby to the point they were vomiting even after Gardai arrived at the scene..

disgusting animal

Although Ms Justice Donnelly acknowledged the assault against the child had been the more serious offence, she said the court could find no “practical consequence” in resentencing and was refusing the DPP’s application. 

just felt this was a very important part of the article. No practical consequence. 🤔

Fandymo

Jesus, some of the comments in here. Sounds like a few hard drives should be checked.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543401#Comment_118543401

Maybe the judges?

See this is the issue with a thread like this, someone arrives to paint their own pictures.

The debate is why the sentence was soft.

chosen1

Just read that there myself. Absolutely disgraceful lack of sentencing there and no surprise to see Justice Nolan being centrally involved.

The like of this is the real reason that both women and men have something to fear when they are out and about in this country. People like this should be incarcerated until they are no longer a danger to society, and it's very likely he will go on to offend again.

The type of fluff we heard from the media and our politicians in the last week about education being the key and asking men to call out other men on their behaviour will unfortunately do very little to prevent incidents like this occurring again. Of course there is no harm in trying to educate our young, but real action in our justice system is the only way we'll ever see an improvement.

Your laws here need a serious revamp they are too soft and outdated to crimes now. And that needs to reflect in the polls,protests,and elections. And there should be a minimum sentencing in place because the judges are too lenient in sentencing. Until any one of those changes happen your just going to have more of the same.

Strumms

’calling out’ ? Since when do ordinary civilians such as ourselves have any role or responsibility to play as regards criminal justice system ? Young people are educated by parents and teachers, if that fails or hasn’t been enabled successfully ie. the message hasn’t got through….. the criminal justice system intervenes, that’s what it’s there for…the tertiary source of education… and primary means of punishing and deterring people who break the law and do others harm…. as well as…Protecting society…

nobody it seems in positions of authority and responsibility wants to be held accountable…. Parents don’t and the criminal justice system sure don’t… what a time to be alive…jeeez

if I’m out for a walk tomorrow and a couple of lads are trying to rob a car I’m going around the corner and 999…not..

” lads, how are ye, now I know it’s quiet and feck all on telly but listen, would yous not be better off, erm, learning French, or Italian than this lark ?”…

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543076#Comment_118543076

It does not matter what the DPP thinks or knows all he brings to the court is the same as every other barrister an opinion which has to be adjudicated on. Judges interpret the law that is enacted by the Oireachtais, if they don't provide for suspended sentences, judges can't apply then. Now you can rant all you like about the Garda, the DPP, the Judiciary, the Prison services, which ever one is your favourite hobby horse, it makes not a blind bit of a difference. You want to see change you need to talk to the organ grinders - the TDs not the monkeys.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543320#Comment_118543320

Or children act, behave and look older than their years. There was nothing to suggest that he knew her age.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543808#Comment_118543808

They certainly try anyway, but that’s besides the point seeing as the defendant in this particular case was not a child, his victim was a child.

As for the idea that there was nothing in what was reported in the article to suggest he had any knowledge of her age, I have no doubt his defence if they could have used that in his defence, would have used it in his defence, and he was still convicted.

The whole point of the case in 2006, in which it was argued that the defendant should be entitled to the defence that he was genuinely mistaken as the age of his victim, led to a fairly swift change in Irish law -

The court made its decision on several grounds, including the failure to allow the defence that a genuine mistake had been made about a girl's age.

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/76569/

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543808#Comment_118543808

He plead guilty to the offence below. that would suggest some foreknowledge

Meeting child for purpose of sexual exploitation

7. (1) A person who—

(a) intentionally meets, or travels with the intention of meeting a child or makes arrangements with the intention of meeting a child or for a child to travel, whether or not from within the State, having communicated by any means with that child on at least one previous occasion, and

(b) does so for the purpose of doing anything that would constitute sexual exploitation of the child,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(3) In this section “child” means a person under the age of 17 years.