nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

O'Donogue only gets 4 years

Mr.Nice Guy

So much for Irish justice. Wayne O'Donoghue has been sentenced to 4 years in prison for the manslaughter of Robert Holohan.

From RTE:

Wayne O'Donoghue has been sentenced to four years in prison for the manslaughter of Robert Holohan.

Last month O'Donoghue, a 21-year-old engineering student from Ballyedmond near Midleton in Co Cork, was acquitted of murder but convicted of the manslaughter of 11-year-old Robert in January 2005.

O'Donoghue admitted killing his next-door neighbour. He said that it was an accident after a row erupted when Robert threw stones at his car.

Earlier today Robert Holohan's mother, Majella, addressed the court. She claimed that semen was found on Robert's body when it was discovered dumped in a ditch at Inch strand in east Cork last January.

Mrs Holohan said that her family's suffering following Robert's death was heartbreaking and indescribable.

She asked why would he have been killed for throwing stones; why were images deleted from his mobile phone; and what was Robert doing in Wayne O'Donoghue's bedroom at 7.20am on one occasion when he was supposed to have been on a sleepover with a friend.

Prior to imposing sentence, Mr Justice Paul Carney warned Majella Holohan to prepare herself.

He told her that the sentence he was going to impose would be upsetting; he said that he would endeavour to explain what he was doing but there was no getting away from the fact that it would upset the mother.

Mr Justice Carney then set out the aggravating and mitigating factors and imposed a sentence of four years.

This is a disgrace. My thoughts and prayers are with Mrs Holohan.

This is a sad day for the justice system in Ireland.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mikros

Now I know I might get attacked for this but I thought I’d put it out there. I think it was inappropriate for these latest rumours/accusations to be allowed go public after the trial and sentencing was concluded. In my opinion it makes a mockery of the whole process. The question is why they weren’t brought before the court if there was any basis in them. I understand the fact that the trial couldn’t be prejudiced by the media, but why was it not presented in court?

The loss of a child is always tragic, but in people desire to see justice you can’t let emotion cloud your judgement. Wayne O'Donoghue was brought before a jury and found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced in line with other manslaughter cases. Now whether that is too lenient in general is another question, the point is that he was given due process. Roberts mother was given the opportunity to address the court today, she wasn’t testifying as some people have said. It’s a decision a judge can make. Is it possible then that what a grieving mother might say about the man who killed her son might be more emotional than a rational view of the facts?

As to whether O'Donoghue meant to kill Robert, based on the facts ruled admissible in court and the presumption of innocence, a jury found him guilty of manslaughter, not murder. In other words there was not malicious aforethought. It was an accident. While plenty of people will make their minds up based on hearsay and what’s in the Evening Herald, they don’t understand how the legal system works, and more importantly why it is that way.

In this case everyone lost. Uniformed speculation is only going to make it hurt more for people involved.

Doctor Benway

boardy wrote:

By the way, just in case some of you become jurists in the future:
Just because a perpetrator of a crime claims that the act was an accident, it does not necessarily mean that it is true.

Wow, thanks Rumpole.

Now if only there was some way of adjucating in cases like these ... perhaps if various pieces of information were put before a group of independent men and women (we could call them a 'jury') and let them decide which version of events they find the most plausible. How would that be?

On the 'accident' issue. No one is suggesting that the death was a complete accident (comparable to a road traffic accident) - if it was, O'Donoghue shouldn't have been found guilty of anything. Clearly, and by his own admission, O'Donoghue was culpable in the death in that deliberate actions of his that led to it. It's the death itself that appears (based on the evidence presented in court) that was accidental.

Similarly, based on the evidence that was actually presented, 4 years seems pretty much in line with other manslaughter verdicts. Remember, he wasn't being tried for lying, or for trying to dispose of the body; it was just the manslaughter. And while the death of a child might be tragic, I don't see why it should be treated more harshly by the courts than the death of an adult.

killeoin

boardy wrote:

The punishment does not match the crime and I am worried what kind of signal it sends out. Certainly not one of deterrence.

oh get over yourself, a lot worse injustices happen every day and no one mutters a word.

CiaranC

boardy wrote:

Semen belonging to O’ Donogue was found on the victim. The Guards knew this but the DPP did not present it, as they believed his statement that it accidentally came from a towel.

Where are you getting this from?

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

boardy wrote:

The punishment does not match the crime and I am worried what kind of signal it sends out. Certainly not one of deterrence.

Most of us don't need deterrence...

boardy

After reading some of the comments in this thread, I now understand the strange jury verdicts of some recent court cases.

Semen belonging to O’ Donogue was found on the victim. The Guards knew this but the DPP did not present it, as they believed his statement that it accidentally came from a towel.

O’ Donogue also tried to set fire to the kid after the accident, and it seems that the body was quite badly mauled by animals.

By the way, just in case some of you become jurists in the future:
Just because a perpetrator of a crime claims that the act was an accident, it does not necessarily mean that it is true.

The punishment does not match the crime and I am worried what kind of signal it sends out. Certainly not one of deterrence.

killeoin

CiaranC wrote:

No, Its not libellous. It was said under protection in the victim impact report.

Ok, this semen claim and phone picture thing is actually confusing me at this stage....(not that hard to I suppose:)

Is it fact or just one womens word?

killeoin

Roundtower2 wrote:

wow! the amount of libellious and downright stupid claims on this thread just goes to a new level.

Could most of you please stick to answering threads along the lines of "what colour hair do you have? a)Blond, b)Blond, c)Atari Jaguar."

This is a serious issue, and a number of claims have been made about a wide range of living people, that seem to be hugely libellous (e.g. the claim about the father).

Just because we are on the internet, does not make the libel laws go away...

...if you want to discuss serious issues, then you should try and discuss them in a serious, well-thought-out and considerate manner imho

If you're referring to what I said about the father then he admitted it in court so it's much more than a "claim", its a fact.

CiaranC

killeon wrote:

And the semen claim isn't?

No, Its not libellous. It was said under protection in the victim impact report.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

wow! the amount of libellious and downright stupid claims on this thread just goes to a new level.

Could most of you please stick to answering threads along the lines of "what colour hair do you have? a)Blond, b)Blond, c)Atari Jaguar."

This is a serious issue, and a number of claims have been made about a wide range of living people, that seem to be hugely libellous (e.g. the claim about the father).

Just because we are on the internet, does not make the libel laws go away...

...if you want to discuss serious issues, then you should try and discuss them in a serious, well-thought-out and considerate manner imho

flogen

killeoin wrote:

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

I never said I wouldn't, but I can't make the connection between panic and looking the mother in the eye, lying to her and consoling her. You'd want to avoid even looking at her if you were guilty, and felt any guilt IMO.

Robert was in a room with Wayne when he was supposed to be at a friends for a sleepover. Shortly after that he made a 999 call. He also had pictures deleted from his phone, and his body was found with (reportedly) Waynes' semen in his clenched hand. All of this was deemed useless by the DPP. What the hell is wrong with them?

nedoo

Child was in adults room, not the other way around.[/QUOTE]

Sorry.Still something funky about that!

Mr.Nice Guy

killeoin wrote:

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

“It cannot be dismissed as being due to panic by reason of the calculation and deliberation involved." - Judge Carney

BuffyBot

He admitted killing the child and leaving him in the ditch & trying to burn the body later.

Ermm yes, which was mentioned in court. No one is denying that, are they...

aidan_walsh

killeoin wrote:

Robert wasn't dead at the time he died after so if O'Donoghue had called for help at that time he wouldn't have died.

nedoo wrote:

Would you find it normal for an adult to be in your childs room first thing in the morning?
Would you not know if an adult was in your childs room first thing in the morning?

Child was in adults room, not the other way around.

killeoin

CiaranC wrote:

Didnt the state pathologist specifically state that this wasnt a sexual attack? Whats with the semen claim?

*edit* someone needs to delete killeons post, its clearly libellous.

And the semen claim isn't?

killeoin

Wacker wrote:

Neither are a thousand years. You can't possibly replace the child's life with a sentence; it is hopeless to even try.

But if you go down that road 4 years was good compared to what Brian Murphys Killers got.

killeoin

Wacker wrote:

That isn't quite right, as the panic would have worn off and he still went through with the charade of looking for the body. That was a sign of terrible, criminal judgement. Which is why I think the sentence fits.

I never said that the sentence didn't fit. I think he was quite lucky in that he maybe should have got more (6 yrs?).

And yes, reading the trial thats what the initial murder was based on, Robert wasn't dead at the time he died after so if O'Donoghue had called for help at that time he wouldn't have died.

I'm not defending him, I just that calling O'Donoghue a cold blooded killer and what not is unfair. He made a mistake and paniced and he was trapped into a corner at that stage and couldn't admit what happened. (Remember how much media coverage it got, wouldn't that put you off?

Wacker

Neither are a thousand years. You can't possibly replace the child's life with a sentence; it is hopeless to even try.

nedoo

I would love to know how many facts in this case that are stated here are true. Things I find strange are:
Would you find it normal for an adult to be in your childs room first thing in the morning?
Would you not know if an adult was in your childs room first thing in the morning?
Would you find it normal for an adult to be a best mate of your child?
Why is the mother appearing on The Late Late this Friday? What good will it do? Put your energy into justice, not talkshows!
I really feel for Robers parents, however both parties have a lot of black areas coming out.
At the end of the day, a child is dead by the hand of another and 4 years is not the value of a childs life.

Wacker

killeoin wrote:

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

That isn't quite right, as the panic would have worn off and he still went through with the charade of looking for the body. That was a sign of terrible, criminal judgement. Which is why I think the sentence fits.

mayhem#

I wonder what someone would get for evading taxes?

E.

killeoin

flogen wrote:

I've worked with children with ADHD before, and while it may not have been an extreme case of it my experience wouldn't justify his actions.

So he panics, fair enough. But why cover up so much? Why go on the searches, abuse Gardai because they aren't working hard enough and then console the mother, telling her he'll be found? If you were in that situation and you paniced, would you be able to face the family?
Why did Robert make a 999 call after being in Waynes room (when he should have been somewhere else)? Why were pictures deleted from Roberts phone and why did Wayne try to burn the body? Where did the semen come from?
No one is saying Robert was an angel, but nor was Wayne and the information the DPP had should have gone to trial, but it didn't.

Ok....can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you wouldn't panic?
No you can't because you never were and never will be (I hope!).

I'm not defending what he did, i'm just saying that in that kind of situation no one can tell how someone will react. The mind is a very strange thing.

killeoin

To be honest I think this whole semen thing is coming up as a result of the search for the body at the time.

flogen

killeoin wrote:

Do people here actually know the facts of the case or are you just gaining all your knowledge from the tabloids? (this is only directed at the ignorant ones amounst you)

-Boy has ADHD.

-Step father used to beat him to control him (it came out in court that most of the marks on his legs are from his stepfather)

-Parents take boy off medication for Christmas.

-Boy goes in next door and smashes O'Donogue's Car Windscreen

-O'Donogue gets him in a headlock to try to control him.

-Accidentally kills him (sounds bad but just sit back and think for a minute how easily it could happen, have you ever held anyone in a headlock?)

-Panics

It’s that simple. Now yes he was wrong in that he didn’t phone the guards straight away but he panicked, Its not fair that people seem to think that he’s a stone cold killer. He made one mistake. That’s all. If anyone is to blame then why not point the finger at the parents for taking the child off medication in the first place. Anyone who works with children with ADHD know how hard it is to manage them.

I've worked with children with ADHD before, and while it may not have been an extreme case of it my experience wouldn't justify his actions.

So he panics, fair enough. But why cover up so much? Why go on the searches, abuse Gardai because they aren't working hard enough and then console the mother, telling her he'll be found? If you were in that situation and you paniced, would you be able to face the family?
Why did Robert make a 999 call after being in Waynes room (when he should have been somewhere else)? Why were pictures deleted from Roberts phone and why did Wayne try to burn the body? Where did the semen come from?
No one is saying Robert was an angel, but nor was Wayne and the information the DPP had should have gone to trial, but it didn't.

killeoin

johnnyrotten wrote:

Two questions

1. Where did you get the above "Facts" from?

Which ones?

johnnyrotten wrote:

2. Where did the semem come from?

I have no idea. Do we even know for certain that it was there?

Wacker

johnnyrotten wrote:

Two questions

1. Where did you get the above "Facts" from?

2. Where did the semem come from?

I think I can answer the first part of that anyway: The statements in the court case that were accepted by experts.

For part two, I have no idea, but I doubt there ever was any semen. The state pathologist never mentioned it, and the body was thoroughly checked for signs of sexual abuse. Remember, that was the presumptive motive at the time of the autopsy.

CiaranC

Didnt the state pathologist specifically state that this wasnt a sexual attack? Whats with the semen claim?

*edit* someone needs to delete killeons post, its clearly libellous.

johnnyrotten

killeoin wrote:

Do people here actually know the facts of the case or are you just gaining all your knowledge from the tabloids? (this is only directed at the ignorant ones amounst you)

-Boy has ADHD.

-Step father used to beat him to control him (it came out in court that most of the marks on his legs are from his stepfather)

-Parents take boy off medication for Christmas.

-Boy goes in next door and smashes O'Donogue's Car Windscreen

-O'Donogue gets him in a headlock to try to control him.

-Accidentally kills him (sounds bad but just sit back and think for a minute how easily it could happen, have you ever held anyone in a headlock?)

-Panics

It’s that simple. Now yes he was wrong in that he didn’t phone the guards straight away but he panicked, Its not fair that people seem to think that he’s a stone cold killer. He made one mistake. That’s all. If anyone is to blame then why not point the finger at the parents for taking the child off medication in the first place. Anyone who works with children with ADHD know how hard it is to manage them.

Two questions

1. Where did you get the above "Facts" from?

2. Where did the semem come from?

Wacker

Four years seems right on the money to me. What worries me is that the mother's statement might result in O'Donoghue getting worse treatment from inmates hen he would otherwise have received (although I am assuming that her statement was insubstantiated, based on what the State pathologist ruled).