False rape accusation...who would you believe?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm guessing character testimonials are acceptable for some other sentencing? If so, it's questionable that there should be a difference here.

Is there any foundation for your guess?

I clearly wrote a question saying I wasn't definite.
However, if it was the case, it would mean that character testimonials were only possible before the sentencing of sexual crimes. My guess and again it's a *guess* is that that’s not the case i.e. I think there is more than 50% chance character testimonials are not only used for sexual crimes.
Do you know otherwise? People love to correct others on the internet so it’s a perfect opportunity for someone to correct me if my guess is wrong. The fact that nobody has so far increases the probability I would give that my guess is correct but I still accept it could be wrong.
ETA: Similarly if anyone else knows one way or another please let us know.

iptba wrote: »

I clearly wrote a question saying I wasn't definite.
However, if it was the case, it would mean that character testimonials were only possible before the sentencing of sexual crimes
....
..

Such confusion about nonsense!

How could anyone imagine that our courts would accept character references only for sex offenders?

Picture the scene:

M’lud, I have here a glowing account of my client’s character from his employer.

Judge: don’t waste the court’s time!

But M’lud, my client is a convicted rapist.

Judge: Oh, I do apologise. I thought this was a robbery case. Well, of course we must hear anything good that can be said of your rapist client!

We are so bamboozled by the media that many people assume this could happen in our courts because our legal system strains every sinew to be lenient to sex offenders.

In reality, as I showed before, any rapist would get a lighter sentence if they put someone in a wheelchair after an unprovoked and vicious attack.

Here’s a mind bender for those who rely on our media to understand the legal system: the reason we hear only hear about character testimonials in sex cases is because so many of those defendants are first time offenders. Offenders who have prior convictions don’t bother with character references because the Gardai and the Probation Service will tell the judge all that is relevant to character.

Try to find that basic fact in any of the stream of media commentary about this issue. You won’t because it doesn’t fit the media narrative.

Woman barred from publishing rape claim
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7218332/woman-barred-from-publishing-rape-claim/

Despite the importance of free speech, Justice Julia Lonergan said she would issue an injunction because the woman's claims were untrue.

It was a consensual, passionate relationship that left the woman feeling disempowered when it ended.

Two years with one suspended for “coercion”. He was accused of asking an 11 year old girl to go for a walk in the woods. No threats, no bribes, no abusive language, no touching. Just an invitation.

No criminal record and the victim’s family did not want a custodial sentence. He wants to go home to Sweden. But now he will spend a year in the tender, loving care of our prison service, emerging no doubt as a fine, upright citizen free from the crippling social difficulties which led him to a solitary existence.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40311713.html

He would have got much the same sentence if he had stabbed her a few times (non-fatally).

https://www.corkbeo.ie/news/local-news/cork-man-who-stabbed-son-20566261

Caquas wrote: »

Two years with one suspended for “coercion”. He was accused of asking an 11 year old girl to go for a walk in the woods. No threats, no bribes, no abusive language, no touching. Just an invitation.

No criminal record and the victim’s family did not want a custodial sentence. He wants to go home to Sweden. But now he will spend a year in the tender, loving care of our prison service, emerging no doubt as a fine, upright citizen free from the crippling social difficulties which led him to a solitary existence.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40311713.html

He would have got much the same sentence if he had stabbed her a few times (non-fatally).

https://www.corkbeo.ie/news/local-news/cork-man-who-stabbed-son-20566261

What exactly are you looking for here?
A bigger sentence or a lesser one? I'm unsure from reading your post

Caquas wrote: »

Two years with one suspended for “coercion”. He was accused of asking an 11 year old girl to go for a walk in the woods. No threats, no bribes, no abusive language, no touching. Just an invitation.

No criminal record and the victim’s family did not want a custodial sentence. He wants to go home to Sweden. But now he will spend a year in the tender, loving care of our prison service, emerging no doubt as a fine, upright citizen free from the crippling social difficulties which led him to a solitary existence.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40311713.html

He would have got much the same sentence if he had stabbed her a few times (non-fatally).

https://www.corkbeo.ie/news/local-news/cork-man-who-stabbed-son-20566261

I recall cases in Ireland where women killed and got suspended sentences/no jail time (and I'm not talking about "not guilty by reason of insanity").

Quantum Erasure

Every time this thread pops up on the front page, I'm amused by the way the title is worded....

Tilden Katz

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Every time this thread pops up on the front page, I'm amused by the way the title is worded....

Me too. I’m wondering if it’s already been confirmed that it’s a false accusation.

Grey Fox

Caquas wrote: »

Two years with one suspended for “coercion”. He was accused of asking an 11 year old girl to go for a walk in the woods. No threats, no bribes, no abusive language, no touching. Just an invitation.

No criminal record and the victim’s family did not want a custodial sentence. He wants to go home to Sweden. But now he will spend a year in the tender, loving care of our prison service, emerging no doubt as a fine, upright citizen free from the crippling social difficulties which led him to a solitary existence.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40311713.html
[/URL]

There must be more incriminating evidence in the details of the case. He was accused of making inappropriate comments (which made the child physically sick) and pled guilty to coercion. It cant be as innocent an interaction as you're making it out to be.

bubblypop wrote: »

What exactly are you looking for here?
A bigger sentence or a lesser one? I'm unsure from reading your post

I’m pointing out the extraordinary inconsistency between the two sentences by the same judge. In one case, a man with a long history of crime stabs his own son eight times and gets 2.5 years Now we have a man with no criminal record who is given 2 years with one suspended for “coercion” which is a new concept in our law but which, it seems, covers inviting a young girl to go for a walk in the woods. I’m not trying to justify or minimise his behaviour and I assume there is more to this than we read in the media but, even on the bare facts, there is a serious problem of inconsistency in our criminal courts.

There is also a serious issue about this new crime. When it was introduced, we were told it was to protect people from controlling and abusive partners but the defendant in this case was practically a stranger to the girl.

Surely this man needs psychiatric help in a caring environment but he will not get it in our prisons.

guy2231

Caquas wrote: »

I’m pointing out the extraordinary inconsistency between the two sentences by the same judge. In one case, a man with a long history of crime stabs his own son eight times and gets 2.5 years Now we have a man with no criminal record who is given 2 years with one suspended for “coercion” which is a new concept in our law but which, it seems, covers inviting a young girl to go for a walk in the woods. I’m not trying to justify or minimise his behaviour and I assume there is more to this than we read in the media but, even on the bare facts, there is a serious problem of inconsistency in our criminal courts.

There is also a serious issue about this new crime. When it was introduced, we were told it was to protect people from controlling and abusive partners but the defendant practically a stranger to this girl.

Surely this man needs help but he will not get it in our prisons.

The guy asked an 11 year old girl to go for a walk in the woods, that is sickening he was more than likely going to rape her and maybe kill her.

You seem to have a lot of sympathy for the man trying to lure a child into the woods, you don't even think he deserves prison.

That is one strange post you just posted.

Caquas wrote: »

There is also a serious issue about this new crime. When it was introduced, we were told it was to protect people from controlling and abusive partners but the defendant in this case was practically a stranger to the girl.

I'm confused by that also.

iptba wrote: »

I'm confused by that also.

The confusion arises from the fact that Caquas is confusing the offence of Coercion under the Non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, with the offence of Coercive Control under the Domestic Violence Act 2018.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The confusion arises from the fact that Caquas is confusing the offence of Coercion under the Non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, with the offence of Coercive Control under the Domestic Violence Act 2018.

You’re right. Mea culpa but that charge seems bizarre. I’ve never heard of a case like this being treated as Coercion under under the 1997 Act and I can’t see how it fits this case.

9.—(1) A person who, with a view to compel another to abstain from doing or to do any act which that other has a lawful right to do or to abstain from doing, wrongfully and without lawful authority—
(a) uses violence to or intimidates that other person or a mem- ber of the family of the other, or
(b) injures or damages the property of that other, or
(c) persistently follows that other about from place to place, or
(d) watches or besets the premises or other place where that other resides, works or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such premises or place, or
(e) follows that other with one or more other persons in a dis- orderly manner in or through any public place,

What compulsion was involved? Which of the sub paragraphs (a) to (e) apply here?

There was no suggestion of threat or pressure or inducements.

He did visit a public park on a few occasions when she was playing. He did not “follow her about from place to place”. Surely he is not deemed to be “watching and besetting”? That would be big news to our trade unions!

Perhaps the media reports omitted a vital aspect of the evidence but we can only discuss what we know about the case.

Caquas wrote: »

You’re right. Mea culpa but that charge seems bizarre. I’ve never heard of a case like this being treated as Coercion under under the 1997 Act and I can’t see how it fits this case.

What compulsion was involved? Which of the sub paragraphs (a) to (e) apply here?

There was no suggestion of threat or pressure or inducements.

He did visit a public park on a few occasions when she was playing. He did not “follow her about from place to place”. Surely he is not deemed to be “watching and besetting”? That would be big news to our trade unions!

Perhaps the media reports omitted a vital aspect of the evidence but we can only discuss what we know about the case.

There clearly was evidence for the charge, the DPP directed it, it's not clear from your link, but I'm assuming he pled guilty, so all evidence would not be heard in court.I

As for your linking these two cases because they had the same judge? Two completely different cases, different circumstances and different outcomes. I'm not sure why you would compare them?

Caquas wrote: »

You’re right. Mea culpa but that charge seems bizarre. I’ve never heard of a case like this being treated as Coercion under under the 1997 Act and I can’t see how it fits this case.

bubblypop to her credit has far more patience than I do, but if you’d even read your own article, you would have seen that he was charged with committing the offence of coercion under the NFOAP Act, and why -

Det. Garda Murphy described the charge as one of coercion, brought under the Non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act, the particulars stating that the defendant acted on July 27, 2020, with a view to compelling the complainant to abstain from doing an act which she had a legal right to do, without lawful authority.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

bubblypop to her credit has far more patience than I do, but if you’d even read your own article, you would have seen that he was charged with committing the offence of coercion under the NFOAP Act, and why -

Det. Garda Murphy described the charge as one of coercion, brought under the Non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act, the particulars stating that the defendant acted on July 27, 2020, with a view to compelling the complainant to abstain from doing an act which she had a legal right to do, without lawful authority.

Obviously the prosecuting Garda always say the defendant did [fill in the brackets with the definition of the offence] on the [alleged dates] to [name of the victim]. That is just begging my question (in the proper meaning of that much abused phrase).

In a nutshell, what act was the girl compelled to abstain from doing?

And it’s nice that Bubblypop has such confidence in the Gardai, the DPP and the courts even if the media reports give rise to obvious questions. This contrasts with the intense criticism of the Gardai, DPP and our courts over the years when dealing with sexual offences but I guess this case does not arouse any interest even if no one can explain how the reported facts justify the sentence.

And yes I referenced another different case but both were heard by the same judge under the Offences Against the Person legislation. Would that judge have given this man a similar sentence if he had stabbed that child repeatedly instead of asking her to go to the woods?

jimwallace197

Caquas wrote: »

Obviously the prosecuting Garda always say the defendant did [fill in the brackets with the definition of the offence] on the [alleged dates] to [name of the victim]. That is just begging my question (in the proper meaning of that much abused phrase).

In a nutshell, what act was the girl compelled to abstain from doing?

And it’s nice that Bubblypop has such confidence in the Gardai, the DPP and the courts even if the media reports give rise to obvious questions. This contrasts with the intense criticism of the Gardai, DPP and our courts over the years when dealing with sexual offences but I guess this case does not arouse any interest even if no one can explain how the reported facts justify the sentence.

And yes I referenced another different case but both were heard by the same judge under the Offences Against the Person legislation. Would that judge have given this man a similar sentence if he had stabbed that child repeatedly instead of asking her to go to the woods?

Interesting how Bubblypop and One Eyed jack have gone so quiet now.

Not surprising Bubblypop is on this thread frequently defending the actions of the gards as she is one herself. Likes to antagonize and question but rarely answers any questions herself. For someone that is meant to protect, be impartial and protect all citizens, its scary how out of touch and biased she is. Says alot about our current AGS

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Interesting how Bubblypop and One Eyed jack have gone so quiet now,

There’s no point jim is all. It would only be dragging the thread further off-topic and for nothing. Caquas doesn’t get it, fine. Nobody can be compelled to entertain them.

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Interesting how Bubblypop and One Eyed jack have gone so quiet now.

Not surprising Bubblypop is on this thread frequently defending the actions of the gards as she is one herself. Likes to antagonize and question but rarely answers any questions herself. For someone that is meant to protect, be impartial and protect all citizens, its scary how out of touch and biased she is. Says alot about our current AGS

So, what do you think?
Was the sentence given to the man who brought the teenager into the woods harsh?
Or not harsh enough?
Fyi, I have never stated that I am a member of AGS.

bubblypop wrote: »

Was the sentence given to the man who brought the teenager into the woods harsh?

The man didn't bring a teenager into the woods.

iptba wrote: »

The man didn't bring a teenager into the woods.

Apologies, is the sentence harsh on the man who tried to get a teenager to walk with him into the woods?
I'm not sure what the complaint is? Too harsh for this particular crime or not harsh enough for a completely different crime?.

Smee_Again

bubblypop wrote: »

Apologies, is the sentence harsh on the man who tried to get a teenager to walk with him into the woods?
I'm not sure what the complaint is? Too harsh for this particular crime or not harsh enough for a completely different crime?.

The girl was 11, not even a teenager.

bubblypop wrote: »

Apologies, is the sentence harsh on the man who tried to get a teenager to walk with him into the woods?
I'm not sure what the complaint is? Too harsh for this particular crime or not harsh enough for a completely different crime?.

Strange how people keep asking this question without offering any views themselves. My view is that Irish courts have become extremely lenient sentencing in most cases so that vicious assaults which inflict serious injuries often receive sentences of about two years. That’s not just my view. It is the view of the President of the Court of Appeal who recently said five years was an appropriate starting point for sentencing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/court-of-appeal-increases-sentences-for-high-end-assault-cases-1.4180069

Now we have this case which also received a two year sentence even though there was no violence or threat. And the defendant had an unblemished record. Yes, he sounds like a weirdo and anti-social so maybe he is considered fair game.

And he pleaded guilty. But why? (If you’re thinking “because he’s guilty!” you have failed to understand the nature of our criminal justice system). Did his lawyers tell him to plead guilty although he was being charged with an offence that is rarely prosecuted, that was not designed for these facts and has never, as far as I can tell, been used to charge a stranger to the complainant. Very odd but maybe someone can explain it. I only hope they didn’t promise him a lighter sentence.

I feel sure of one thing. This man will come out of our prisons with new “friends” and “experiences” that will make it even less likely that he will find a place in society.

So what do you think? Fair and consistent sentencing or arbitrary and harsh?

Feck it, I’ll give this a go Caquas because I’m not starting work yet and I have a bit of time, and I’m hoping it’s a bit clearer to you after explaining, because I’ll be quiet after this (if that’s acceptable to jim).

Caquas wrote: »

Strange how people keep asking this question without offering any views themselves. My view is that Irish courts have become extremely lenient sentencing in most cases so that vicious assaults which inflict serious injuries often receive sentences of about two years. That’s not just my view. It is the view of the President of the Court of Appeal who recently said five years was an appropriate starting point for sentencing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/court-of-appeal-increases-sentences-for-high-end-assault-cases-1.4180069

You’re misrepresenting the Justices opinion there. He observed that Judges shouldn’t shy away from starting with the maximum sentence in section 3 assault cases which is 5 years, in exceptional circumstances where the circumstances of the case amount to borderline section 4 category offence where the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

Caquas wrote: »

Now we have this case which also received a two year sentence even though there was no violence or threat. And the defendant had an unblemished record. Yes, he sounds like a weirdo and anti-social so maybe he is considered fair game.

One of the elements of the criminal offence of coercion is intimidation, and according to the defendants legal representation, he knows that he presented beside the child and caused her to be afraid (quoting directly from the article you posted). Even though you say there was no threat, there is evidence that the victim did feel there was an imminent threat and felt intimidated by the defendant who, in this particular case tried to play down the circumstances of the case by claiming it was a misunderstanding. From another article regarding the hearing of the case (as opposed to the sentencing hearing in the Examiner) -

The Swedish national, of Rochestown, Cork city, pleaded guilty to one count of coercion.

Det Garda Brian Murphy told Cork Circuit Criminal Court that the school girl was playing camogie near her home when the pervert approached her.

He made inappropriate comments involving her going for a walk in woods with him.

She ran home to her mother who followed the man, later identified as Nordell, and took a picture of him.

Det Garda Murphy told Judge Sean O’Donnabhain the child became physically sick afterwards.

Her mum called gardai and a search was carried out by the Armed Support Unit.

Resulting from enquiries, Nordell was subsequently interviewed by gardai.

Caquas wrote: »

And he pleaded guilty. But why? (If you’re thinking “because he’s guilty!” you have failed to understand the nature of our criminal justice system). Did his lawyers tell him to plead guilty although he was being charged with an offence that is rarely prosecuted, that was not designed for these facts and has never, as far as I can tell, been used to charge a stranger to the complainant. Very odd but maybe someone can explain it. I only hope they didn’t promise him a lighter sentence.

How often anyone is charged with a particular offence is neither here nor there in terms of how relevant it is that an individual plead guilty to the charge. Contrary to your belief, the charge of coercion is designed specifically for circumstances in which an individual is charged with coercion. That’s kinda the point! Remember when I mentioned earlier that intimidation is an element of the criminal offence of coercion? In this particular case, the element of intimidation was obvious to all concerned, and the States evidence was sufficient to suggest that coercion was an appropriate charge. In another case where the defendant was charged with the criminal offence of coercion, the States evidence lacked the element of intimidation which meant that a Jury could reasonably come to the conclusion that the defendant was not guilty, and on that basis the Judge directed the Jury to return a verdict of not guilty -

Today Judge Keenan Johnson told the jury that the evidence offered by the prosecution in the case did not meet the essential elements of the charge of coercion.

The charge has to prove that there was intimidation of Ms Rooney by Mr Gilmartin in the course of the interview and while she was distressed, there was no evidence that she was frightened or overawed.

…

In directing the jury, Judge Johnson said the State’s evidence had not met the essential elements of the charge, which had to prove there was intimidation.

Judge directs not guilty verdict in Sligo coercion case

Now do you see why the defendant may have been advised by their legal representation to plead guilty and save everyone having to go through a trial when the victim was still experiencing ill effects as a result of this mans behaviour? It was also why the Judge felt it was inappropriate that he should simply be allowed to board a plane back to Sweden and for there not to be any consequences for him for his behaviour. The Judge could have imposed the maximum custodial sentence available to him in the Circuit Criminal Court for the criminal offence of coercion, which is five years, but he chose not to, and instead imposed a sentence of two years with one year suspended on condition that the defendant upon release leave the jurisdiction and not return for a period of five years -

Judge O’Donnabhain jailed Nordell for two years suspending the final year on condition that he leave the jurisdiction upon his release and not return for a period of five years.

Caquas wrote: »

I feel sure of one thing. This man will come out of our prisons with new “friends” and “experiences” that will make it even less likely that he will find a place in society.

So what do you think? Fair and consistent sentencing or arbitrary and harsh?

Given the circumstances involved in this particular case, I think the sentence was fair and consistent with sentencing in these types of cases. I also think the sentence handed down by the same Judge in a completely different case you brought up as an example where the defendant did not try to downplay the circumstances or consequences of their behaviour, and where in spite of his son’s pleas for leniency (who was the victim), the Judge was of the opinion that while the circumstances of the case were tragic, the man could have killed his son -

Judge O'Donnabhain said that it was a "truly sad and tragic case." He emphasised that Mr Frahill “could have killed his son."

He stressed that excessive alcohol consumption and possession of knife was a "lethal combination."

He said that he didn't believe that the stabbing incident was in any way provoked and that only for "surgical intervention his (Leon’s) son could have died."

"It is a heartbreaking case. I do understand that this young fella doesn't want his father to go to jail. All he wants is for him to straighten himself out."

Taking the guilty pleas in to account he jailed Mr Frahill for 2.5 years. He ordered that Mr Frahill be treated for ongoing medical conditions whilst in custody.

The sentencing in that case is consistent with the sentence the Judge handed down in another case involving an unprovoked attack involving a knife used as a weapon. In that case the Judge was of the opinion that rehabilitation did not appear to be of any benefit and imposed a three year sentence backdated to when the defendant went into custody -

Man jailed for 'unprovoked attack' in Cork city

I gather that what you’re arguing is what appears to be in your opinion an inconsistency in how cases are treated with regard to sentencing. You’re failing to take account of the circumstances involved in each individual case, and you appear to be only looking at the overall outcomes of sentencing and trying to compare completely different cases on that basis. You can try doing that and make an argument out of it, but I say it can’t be done, and what I do is compare cases where the circumstances are similar, and where they are different, which explains exactly what appears to be on the face of it an inconsistency in sentencing, but actually it isn’t.

As regards the severity or leniency of sentencing for particular criminal offences, one would have to have an awful lot of time on their hands, or be paid to conduct actual research into the phenomenon to provide sufficient credible evidence for their opinion, as opposed to a hunch based off media reports, if they want their opinion to be taken seriously. I don’t have a lot of time on my hands (sorry jim), and I’m sure as hell not being paid for this, so I’m not going to be going to too much effort to try and be helpful in helping someone to understand something when it becomes obvious they just don’t want to get it, they hold their opinions without sufficient credible evidence and they’re content to do so. It would require more effort than I’m willing to muster at this hour of the morning before I’ve even had coffee, in order to overcome their difficulties in understanding the fundamental flaws in their beliefs.

Wibbs

Jimwallace197, claims about a poster's job based entirely on supposition without that poster saying anything of the kind is not on, never mind as some "gotcha" point in lieu of civil argument. Please refrain from such musings in future. Thanks you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feck it, I’ll give this a go Caquas because I’m not starting work yet and I have a bit of time, and I’m hoping it’s a bit clearer to you after explaining, because I’ll be quiet after this (if that’s acceptable to jim).

I can do without your condescension but, feck it, I finished a long day’s work so here goes.

You’re misrepresenting the Justices opinion there.

No I didn’t or do you mean that the Irish Times did?

I said

Irish courts have become extremely lenient sentencing in most cases so that vicious assaults which inflict serious injuries often receive sentences of about two years. That’s not just my view. It is the view of the President of the Court of Appeal who recently said five years was an appropriate starting point for sentencing.

Here the first two sentences from the IT report

courts should not shy away from starting at five years’ imprisonment when it comes to sentencing individuals for “high-end” cases of assault causing harm, according to the Court of Appeal. Mr Justice George Birmingham, president of the Court of Appeal, made the observation after three people jailed for three separate assaults in Waterford were found to have been given “unduly lenient” sentences.

You prefer legalese, it seems, but the meaning is the same:the IT and I both summarised the Judge fairly. Unlike yourself when it comes to the case in question

Contrary to your belief, the charge of coercion is designed specifically for circumstances in which an individual is charged with coercion.

This is the perfect circular argument - “the charge of coercion is designed for ....er..er....charging someone with coercion!”

How strange that such a perfectly designed charge has been sitting on our statute books for over 20 years but no comparable case seems to have arrived before our courts until last week. What far-sighted legislators we elected! A pity they never mentioned their ingenious designs when debating the Act. Except for that totally different case of the Social Welfare Inspector whose case was dismissed.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0726/804937-sligo-trial/

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/1997/13/?tab=debates

One of the elements of the criminal offence of coercion is intimidation, and according to the defendants legal representation, he knows that he presented beside the child and caused her to be afraid (quoting directly from the article you posted). Even though you say there was no threat, there is evidence that the victim did feel there was an imminent threat and felt intimidated by the defendant

Again I ask, what was she coerced to do? It’s not enough to prove one element of an offence.

His barrister did say

“He knows he presented beside this child and caused her to be afraid,” Ms Behan said.

Even with a guilty plea, that is an extraordinary example of defence Counsel doing the work of the Prosecution. But does that get him two years in jail?

Smee_Again

What a strange hill to die on.

Caquas wrote: »

Again I ask, what was she coerced to do? It’s not enough to prove one element of an offence.

His barrister did say

Even with a guilty plea, that is an extraordinary example of defence Counsel doing the work of the Prosecution. But does that get him two years in jail?

The criminal offence of coercion involves acting with a view to compel someone to do something with no lawful authority to compel them to do so. In this particular case, the man tried to coax the child to accompany him into the woods. He acted without any lawful authority in attempting to do so.

It’s why when the case was heard in the District Court, he was remanded on bail subject to a number of conditions -

There was no objection to the accused being remanded on bail, but he must continue to adhere to stringent bail conditions.

The man is not allowed to access greenways or walkways in the Cork city area. He has also been ordered to stay away from the area in which the alleged offence occurred and from where the young girl resides.

He is forbidden from leaving the jurisdiction, has to sign daily at his local Garda station, provide his mobile phone number to Gardaí and stay away from the area where the complainant lives.

He has also been ordered not to approach any female or male under the age of 18 unknown to him.

Judge Kelleher has granted free legal aid in the case. A Book of Evidence has also been prepared.

His legal representation did a hell of a job considering the circumstances involving coercion of a child in an attempt to have them accompany the defendant into the woods, and the accused appeared to be offering the fact that they couldn’t find anyone who wanted to have sex with them as though this was somehow relevant to their defence!

The job of their legal representation as Officers of the Court isn’t just to represent their clients to the best of their ability, it is also to promote their clients best interests. Had the defendant still opted to plead not guilty at the Circuit Criminal Court, and put everyone through a trial and still been found guilty, they would have received a much lengthier custodial sentence. His legal representation did an admirable job in defending their client.

The only thing I can think of that this case has to do with the thread is whether or not to believe the adult who claimed it was all a misunderstanding, or the child who according to the Judge after reading her victim impact statement, he was of the opinion that she had gone through a truly frightening experience -

A victim impact statement was handed in to the judge. It was not read in open court.

Judge Sean O'Donnabhain said that the young girl had gone through a "truly frightening experience".

"This little girl was playing innocently when her innocence was taken from her. The plea is helpful and he co-operated and is remorseful. But this is a serious incident. A non-custodial sentence is not adequate.

"This girl was innocently playing in the middle in the day and what has occurred has had significant ongoing effects."

Judge O'Donnabhain jailed Mr Nordell for two years suspending the final year of the sentence on condition that he leave the jurisdiction upon his release and not return for a period of five years.

He directed that Nordell receive medical attention in prison after his barrister expressed concern for his welfare following his incarceration.

Man jailed after trying to coerce 11-year-old girl