Fella goes to court accused of stealing €3 worth of Creme Eggs, yes €3

Atlantic Dawn · 12-07-2017 08:00PM #1

A lad goes to court today accused of stealing €3, yes 300 cent worth of Creme Eggs, the case must have cost €3k plus, who in the jaysus decided to bring it to court? The amount of scummers roaming the streets committing much serious crimes openly and not a thing is done despite CCTV evidence etc etc.

Unimpressed, Judge Halpin read the charge sheet before him and said: “Three state witnesses, him, a judge and a solicitor, for a Cadbury’s Creme Egg? You couldn’t make
this stuff up.”

https://www.sundayworld.com/news/courts/case-against-man-accused-of-stealing-creme-eggs-worth-3-from-lidl-struck-out

TerrorFirmer · 12-07-2017 08:04PM

Similar thing happened in Galway a few years ago, a guy was brought before the courts for stealing some chicken worth about €2 from Dunnes.

Here it is:

A case in which a homeless man was brought to court for stealing a southern fried chicken breast, valued at only €2.69, was described by a Galway District Court judge recently as a “total waste of resources”.

Judge Mary Fahy presiding at Galway District Court last week questioned the reasoning behind such a case being brought before the court as the proceedings had cost far more than the value of a chicken breast.

Brendan Hanney (54 ) with an address at Fairgreen Hostel was brought before Judge Fahy and pleaded guilty to stealing a Southern fried chicken breast, valued at €2.69, from Dunnes Stores, Edward Square, on November 26, 2008.

The court heard that when arrested the defendant’s reply to the charge had been: “I do not remember. I’m suffering from amnesia”.

Inspector Mick Coppinger told the court that on the date in question the defendant entered Dunnes Stores and approached the hot food counter where he put “southern fried chicken in his pocket” and tried to leave without paying.

Defence solicitor Valerie Corcoran said that her client suffers from alcoholism which has resulted in him being homeless.

“The amount is €2.69. It’s a total waste of resources, how much has it cost to bring this man to court?” asked Judge Fahy who then gave the Hanney the benefit of the Probation Act Section 1(1 ).

colm_mcm · 12-07-2017 08:08PM

Sends out a great message. Can they not just do what they're being paid to do?
Some neck going on about a waste of resources.

osarusan · 12-07-2017 08:08PM

Sounds crazy in this case, but at the same time I don't think that the state should be deciding to prosecute or not just based on the cost.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy · 12-07-2017 08:12PM

Agreed. Why pay for anything at all then, once it's low cost and not worth prosecuting you over?

ED E · 12-07-2017 08:14PM

So as long as the item is worth less than a tenner I can just walk off with it?

Go to Spar, take a chicken fillet roll.
Then head to Centra, steal myself some lucozade.
Next we'll hit up Londis for a bag of Werthers to finish off my lunch.

In the evening I'll hit dunnes for a can of Heino and a readymade dinner.

Theft is theft, gone be the days of a night stick the face so the courts are the logical, and only, recourse.

Armchair Andy · 12-07-2017 08:16PM

Do Kinder eggs thieves get tried in Juvenile court?
Just musing here.

TallGlass · 12-07-2017 08:18PM

ED E wrote: »

So as long as the item is worth less than a tenner I can just walk off with it?

Go to Spar, take a chicken fillet roll.
Then head to Centra, steal myself some lucozade.
Next we'll hit up Londis for a bag of Werthers to finish off my lunch.

In the evening I'll hit dunnes for a can of Heino and a readymade dinner.

Theft is theft, gone be the days of a night stick the face so the courts are the logical, and only, recourse.

Should be quick fine, 100€ for anything between 0-10.99, 11-20.99 = 200€, 21-30.99 = 300€ and so on until about 500 euro.

Richard Hillman · 12-07-2017 08:18PM

Security staff won't normally go near anybody who they think have pilfered a small item. The recourse for a wrong accusation is massive and would cost thousands in damages.

If they see a guy who does it regularly then they will sting him one day when they see it for sure.

SEPT 23 1989 · 12-07-2017 08:20PM

At least he didnt declare the inner goo as garlic or he would have been looking at five years

Are Am Eye · 12-07-2017 08:36PM

You look the other way when he takes a creme egg, next thing he's progressing to kinder eggs. Then he tries out the hard stuff (yorkies) and then he's an addict. Kill his own granny for a turkish delight.

Hannibal_Smith · 12-07-2017 08:39PM

How did he eat them?

12-07-2017 08:41PM

ED E wrote: »

Then head to Centra, steal myself some lucozade.
Next we'll hit up Londis for a bag of Werthers to finish off my lunch.

In the evening I'll hit dunnes for a can of Heino and a readymade dinner.

That's a grim shopping list...

mynamejeff · 12-07-2017 08:46PM

TallGlass wrote: »

Should be quick fine, 100€ for anything between 0-10.99, 11-20.99 = 200€, 21-30.99 = 300€ and so on until about 500 euro.

the legal sector wouldnt like that

it was not my client judge

the garda set him up

the cctv isnt good enough

my cliants rghts were violated

he is an addict, cant help himself

bad child hood etc etc etc

I agree with you the solicitors would never let something like that happen

Guy:Incognito · 12-07-2017 08:46PM

I assumed without reading it that this is a case of general scumbag they are doing for anything they catch him on to keep him away from the shop.

First hit on Google for Anthony O'Connell court. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/druggedup-burglar-left-id-at-scene-court-told-29907940.html

Same guy id assume. The age matches, 38 3 years ago, 41 now.

Theft is theft and should always be punished imo. A fine system like above would be a good option, but again it's probably not a stretch to assume it'll be coming from money he gets off the state in the first place and probably at 2 quid a week or something else pathetic.

frozenfrozen · 12-07-2017 08:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a grim shopping list...

Shopping list would make it premeditated. 10 years hard labour

blueser · 12-07-2017 08:50PM

The fact that he (maybe) actually likes those horrible, sickly eggs is surely punishment enough.

12-07-2017 09:00PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

the legal sector wouldnt like that

it was not my client judge

the garda set him up

the cctv isnt good enough

my cliants rghts were violated

he is an addict, cant help himself

bad child hood etc etc etc

I agree with you the solicitors would never let something like that happen

But theft is a serious accusation. It is not an offence of strict liability, so yes people are entitled to defend it. It's for the State to do the cost benefit analysis, people should not plead guilty if they have a valid defence (not really most of the matters you refer to) just to give the State an easy time.

mynamejeff · 12-07-2017 09:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But theft is a serious accusation. It is not an offence of strict liability, so yes people are entitled to defend it. It's for the State to do the cost benefit analysis, people should not plead guilty if they have a valid defence (not really most of the matters you refer to) just to give the State an easy time.

lol your a solicitor arent you ?

gizmo81 · 12-07-2017 09:10PM

Did he have Legal Aid?

Are Am Eye · 12-07-2017 09:19PM

gizmo81 wrote: »

Did he have Legal Aid?

Certainly he did.

The question I would ask is having pleaded not guilty, used a taxpayer
funded solicitor, and having been found guilty, why is he not now
invoiced for the legal cost to the exchequer for his dishonest plea.

In case anyone mentions that he would not or could not pay said invoice, I
believe the point of same is that he would be precluded from ever again accessing legal aid until he had paid off this debt.

RustyNut · 12-07-2017 09:24PM

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Certainly he did.

The question I would ask is having pleaded not guilty, used a taxpayer
funded solicitor, and having been found guilty, why is he not now
invoiced for the legal cost to the exchequer for his dishonest plea.

In case anyone mentions that he would not or could not pay said invoice, I
believe the point of same is that he would be precluded from ever again accessing legal aid until he had paid off this debt.

He wasn't found guilty was he?

RustyNut · 12-07-2017 09:31PM

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Certainly he did.

The question I would ask is having pleaded not guilty, used a taxpayer
funded solicitor, and having been found guilty, why is he not now
invoiced for the legal cost to the exchequer for his dishonest plea.

In case anyone mentions that he would not or could not pay said invoice, I
believe the point of same is that he would be precluded from ever again accessing legal aid until he had paid off this debt.

I suppose it should work the other way too, if someone is charged and doesn't qualify for legal aid and are then found not guilty the prosecuting authorities should pick up the bill for their legal representation.

12-07-2017 09:33PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

lol your a solicitor arent you ?

Yes I am.

I suspect references to issues like strict liability went waaaaaaaay over your head.

"Lol" indeed.

Are Am Eye · 12-07-2017 09:34PM

RustyNut wrote: »

He wasn't found guilty was he?

He was caught chocolate handed.

RustyNut wrote: »

I suppose it should work the other way too, if someone is charged and doesn't qualify for legal aid and are then found not guilty the prosecuting authorities should pick up the bill for their legal representation.

That seems fair.

TallGlass · 12-07-2017 09:41PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

the legal sector wouldnt like that

it was not my client judge

the garda set him up

the cctv isnt good enough

my cliants rghts were violated

he is an addict, cant help himself

bad child hood etc etc etc

I agree with you the solicitors would never let something like that happen

Fine by me, if they want to go down that route then if they lose they pay the costs. Pay the fine or contest it, if you lose you pay.

Ipso · 12-07-2017 09:41PM

He have been hatching something bigger.

flutered · 12-07-2017 09:44PM

Are Am Eye wrote: »

You look the other way when he takes a creme egg, next thing he's progressing to kinder eggs. Then he tries out the hard stuff (yorkies) and then he's an addict. Kill his own granny for a turkish delight.

then why was he given the probation act, is this only given to first time offenders

Yawns · 12-07-2017 09:46PM

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Certainly he did.

The question I would ask is having pleaded not guilty, used a taxpayer
funded solicitor, and having been found guilty, why is he not now
invoiced for the legal cost to the exchequer for his dishonest plea.

In case anyone mentions that he would not or could not pay said invoice, I
believe the point of same is that he would be precluded from ever again accessing legal aid until he had paid off this debt.

The case was struck out as garda didn't attend to give evidence.

flutered · 12-07-2017 09:47PM

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Certainly he did.

The question I would ask is having pleaded not guilty, used a taxpayer
funded solicitor, and having been found guilty, why is he not now
invoiced for the legal cost to the exchequer for his dishonest plea.

In case anyone mentions that he would not or could not pay said invoice, I
believe the point of same is that he would be precluded from ever again accessing legal aid until he had paid off this debt.

if he was homeless he was entitled to legal aid, p.murphy and sean e fitz got legal aid, they are not homeless

RustyNut · 12-07-2017 09:48PM

flutered wrote: »

then why was he given the probation act, is this only given to first time offenders

The case was obviously a bit flakey.

Fella goes to court accused of stealing €3 worth of Creme Eggs, yes €3

Comments