what does the phrase "the judge imposed two 6 month custody terms" mean?

vafankillar

hope this is an okay place to ask, just reading a court article and didn't know what it meant. was assuming jail terms? but seems like a strange way to phrase it (tho it's not something i delve into often)

sydthebeat

Link?

con747

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419106/what-does-the-phrase-the-judge-imposed-two-6-month-custody-terms-mean

Usually means some fecker should be serving 12 months like it should be but only going to serve part of 6 and be out a lot sooner. I'm open to correction though.

Starlight 50

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419106/what-does-the-phrase-the-judge-imposed-two-6-month-custody-terms-mean

Presumably the defendant was convicted on two separate charges, therfore received 6 months in custody for each of them.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123617082#Comment_123617082

The main issue is whether or not the two terms run concurrently or consecutively.

Starlight 50

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123617745#Comment_123617745

Well, the OP never mentioned anything about that, just seemed to wonder what it meant. Maybe they might come back to us

Kimbot

Can you link the article OP?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123617755#Comment_123617755

The o/p didn't seem to know what happened. Two six month terms can mean 12 months, or 6 months, depending on whether the terms run consecutively or concurrently.

It may also be relevant if there is an appeal. If an appeal succeeded in respect of one offence and not the other the term imposed would remain in respect of that offence.

vafankillar

Cheers for the responses, should have just linked article originally

https://www.kildarenow.com/news/local-news/1797845/man-was-arrested-by-garda-at-a-kildare-courthouse.html

Peregrinus

Not a great report, since the facts are presented in a confusing fashion and there is no clear statement of what charges the guy was facing. But you can piece together the following picture:

• He was facing two charges; one for possession of stolen goods, and one for disorderly behaviour.
• Either he was convicted of both charges, or he pled guilty to them.
• The judge imposed a six-month sentence in respect of each charge.

The report doesn't actually say whether the sentences are to run concurrently (serve both sentences at the same time) or consecutively (finish the first sentence; then immediately start the next).

Where sentences relate to charges that are all part of the same episode, they almost always run concurrently; it's seen as unfair to pile one sentence on top of another in respect of a single episode where the same behaviour infringes several different laws. (Plus, it costs taxpayers a lot of money, serves no public purpose, and isn't effective to reduce offending.)

But where you are convicted in the same proceedings of different offences committed on different occasions (which seems to be the case here) the judge can direct that the sentences be served concurrently or consecutively. The report — which is not a very good report, frankly; KildareNow could stand to lift its journalistic game a bit — does not say what the judge decided about this point.

But the overall flavour of the report suggested that the judge wasn't optimistic that prison was going to do much good here. The man's underlying problem, and the cause of his offending, is longstanding bipolar disorder, possibly exacerbated by substance abuse. Mental health is — ahem — not improved by being imprisoned, and I get the sense that the judge felt that a prospect of imprisonment, as an incentive to encourage the guy to engage with mental health services and stick to his therapy, might be more useful than actual imprisonment.