Good backround, no jail for you

30-03-2007 04:08PM #1

All I can say is the girls solicitor must be shít hot.

It raises the question would the judge have been so lenient if the girl was from ballymun as opposed to Terenure.

I'm going to start dealing and pretend ive diabetes so I won't get jail time

Community service for UCD dropout with €20,000 ecstasy
30/03/2007 - 15:32:54

A south city UCD dropout who was found transporting over €20,000 worth of "ecstasy" tablets in a borrowed car "as a favour" is to be assessed for community service in lieu of three years imprisonment.

Claire Hanrahan (aged 21), of Terenure Road East pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to possession of "ecstasy" for sale or supply at Winetavern Street and at Comeragh Road, Drimnagh on December 14, 2005.

Judge Katherine Delahunt referred the case to the Probation Service to assess Hanrahan’s suitability for community service in lieu of three year jail term "to see if you can repay to the community some of the damage your behaviour would have caused".

She noted that Hanrahan had been diagnosed as an insulin dependent diabetic shortly before the incident and medical reports suggested that a "cognitive deficit" may have occurred as a result leading to mental instability which would explain her "complete personality transformation" during this time.

Garda Corina Carroll told Mr Garnet Orange BL, prosecuting, that she searched a car that Hanrahan was driving at Winetavern Street on foot of confidential information.

She said she found two clear plastic bags in Hanrahan’s handbag containing "ecstasy" tablets valued at €20,060.

A search of the bedroom of the apartment where Hanrahan was living at the time yielded a further €540 of "ecstasy" and a quantity of cannabis resin valued at €34.

Gda Carroll said that during interview Hanrahan told them that she had earlier collected the tablets and brought them to a person as a favour. She said this person had counted out 2,000 tablets for her to bring to someone else and it was in the course of this second trip she was stopped.

She agreed with Mr John Nolan BL, defending Hanrahan, that the car was not hers and that she immediately admitted her guilt. She agreed that there had been a "degree of naivety" on her part.

She told Judge Delahunt that she believed the tablets were being transported as a "favour" and did not think any money was going to change hands.

Ms Martina Hanrahan, mother of the accused, told Mr Nolan that her daughter had been a "very good student" and she "had great hopes for her".

She said her daughter had wanted a year out after school but she had persuaded her to go to UCD, which Hanrahan found "unstructured" and, despite her pleas, Hanrahan had left college six weeks before she was due to sit her exams. Her daughter was also diagnosed with diabetes which came as a "total shock".

Ms Hanrahan said she tried to exercise "tough love" with her daughter and told her to go out and find a job and flat, not expecting her to actually do so. She said this incident was "out of character" for her daughter and she was now living back at the family home.

Mr Nolan submitted that Hanrahan had become "disaffected" at UCD and after moving out of the family home her "lifestyle had to be funded".

He said she had "cooperated to the highest degree with the gardaí" and was now back in the family home and in employment.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=MHAUEYEYAUEY

humanji · 30-03-2007 04:13PM

Cool, I'm diabetic too. Anybody need anything transported back from Amsterdam?

ArthurDent · 30-03-2007 04:28PM

My favourite bit from the above report

"Mr Nolan submitted that Hanrahan had become "disaffected" at UCD and after moving out of the family home her "lifestyle had to be funded"."

Anyone else here move out from their family home and needed their lifestyle funded resorted t pushing drugs - what's wrong with getting a bloody job?:eek:

seamus · 30-03-2007 04:38PM

Each case on its own tbh. Assuming that this girl had no previous convictions, I think that's a fairly reasonable sentence, given the circumstances.

I don't think it's a case of "Good background, no jail", but they would rather look on the person's ordinary character as a measure. Someone who has been arrested/charged multiple times on drugs offences, is clearly not the kind of person who "just made a really dumb mistake". Diabetes can come as a bit of a shock to people, and it seems fairly reasonable to me that it could have altered her outlook life, which is why she'd be happy to do something like this.

IMO, in cases of serious disorder or violence, it's more a case, "Ah poor pet was beaten as a child and had an alcoholic father, sure give him a suspended sentence. That guy has a wheelchair to get around, he'll be grand". Whereas if you've a good background, you get the book thrown at you because you're seen as having no excuse.

Gurgle · 30-03-2007 04:43PM

seamus wrote:

Each case on its own tbh. Assuming that this girl had no previous convictions, I think that's a fairly reasonable sentence, given the circumstances.

Agree ^^

I'd rather see real scumbags locked up, this girl doesn't exactly pose a threat to society.

JayRoc · 30-03-2007 04:44PM

Fair play to the judge for making a tough choice (and one she probably knew she'd catch flack for).
She judged this case on it's individual merits, and probably came to the conclusion that the accused stood very little chance of re-offending if the probation act was applied, and that a custodial sentence would do more harm than good in this particular instance.

I'm all for the right people being sent down when appropriate, but I think in circumstances like this, where the accused hasn't hurt anyone, and has already been so thoroughly ****-scared by what's happened it's doubtful she'll ever so much as jaywalk for the rest of her life, rehabilitation is more important than punishment.

And sending her to prison would simply have meant adding one more person to the large list of write-offs this country's already lumbered with.
You wanna good shot at making someone a lifetime criminal/no-hoper/burden on society? Send 'em to prison, and cost the taxpayer a bundle while you're at it.

Good call.

WindSock · 30-03-2007 04:47PM

ArthurDent wrote:

Anyone else here move out from their family home and needed their lifestyle funded resorted t pushing drugs - what's wrong with getting a bloody job?:eek:

Yes

many have. Not pushing though, thats a different thing altogether.
Nothing wrong with getting a job,but it doesnt pay as much.

brianthebard · 30-03-2007 04:57PM

seamus wrote:

Each case on its own tbh. Assuming that this girl had no previous convictions, I think that's a fairly reasonable sentence, given the circumstances.

I'd agree if the quantity wasn't so high-possession over €10,000 is fairly major dealer stuff and usually you would be looking at 10 years, maybe more. a 21 year old should have a bit more chop on, especially if she is a "good student". Why was ecstasy in inverted commas anyways? It either was or it wasn't surely?

seamus · 30-03-2007 05:03PM

brianthebard wrote:

Why was ecstasy in inverted commas anyways? It either was or it wasn't surely?

Ecstasy is the street name of the drug, not the actual name. It's MDMA. The quotes are to show that the paper is simply quoting what was said in court. Journalistic pedantry at its best

robinph · 30-03-2007 05:15PM

brianthebard wrote:

Why was ecstasy in inverted commas anyways? It either was or it wasn't surely?

Surely its the €20,000 that should have been in inverted commas as that is the completely invented part of the article. What about the €34 of cannabis that they found as well, with the way that they calculate the values of drugs that must have been a microscopic amount of the drug that they found.

Boston · 30-03-2007 05:18PM

Drugs prices don't vary hugely, 400 E's would be about 20 grands worth.

jdivision · 30-03-2007 05:46PM

Boston wrote:

Drugs prices don't vary hugely, 400 E's would be about 20 grands worth.

Eh, somebody's ripping you off. That's e50 a pill! I think that this case is a clear one of one law for the rich and another for the poor. Oh but she comes from a good background... more reason why she shouldn't have been in that situation.
I thought more than £10,000 drugs in your possession = mandatory 10 years in prison.

Boston · 30-03-2007 05:56PM

sorry meant 4000. And I've heard of people getting 10 years for that much in cannabis on a first offence.

Blush_01 · 30-03-2007 05:56PM

seamus wrote:

Diabetes can come as a bit of a shock to people, and it seems fairly reasonable to me that it could have altered her outlook life, which is why she'd be happy to do something like this.

That's the most stupidly AH response I've ever heard. Normal people get shocks and deal with them, they don't turn around and use said shock as an excuse to deal drugs. My dad suffered heart failure last year - should I check his jeep out just in case? OOh, I wonder if I'll find crack under the floor covering.

JayRoc · 30-03-2007 05:58PM

jdivision wrote:

Eh, somebody's ripping you off. That's e50 a pill! I think that this case is a clear one of one law for the rich and another for the poor. Oh but she comes from a good background... more reason why she shouldn't have been in that situation.
I thought more than £10,000 drugs in your possession = mandatory 10 years in prison.

Judges are quite happy to ignore so-called "mandatory" sentences when they feel they're inappropriate, and rightly so (although I'm admittedly puzzled at the use of the word mandatory!).

event · 30-03-2007 06:01PM

seamus wrote:

Each case on its own tbh. Assuming that this girl had no previous convictions, I think that's a fairly reasonable sentence, given the circumstances.

Gurgle wrote:

Agree ^^

I'd rather see real scumbags locked up, this girl doesn't exactly pose a threat to society.

eh, what?

the girl was transporting drugs lads.

she was aiding these 'real scumbags'

should have got jail time, no doubt about it

jdivision · 30-03-2007 06:03PM

JayRoc wrote:

Judges are quite happy to ignore so-called "mandatory" sentences when they feel they're inappropriate

for rich kids;)

Boston · 30-03-2007 06:10PM

Lads the Key thing here is "cooperated to the highest degree with the gardaí" That more then anything else is probably why she's not in jail.

ChRoMe · 30-03-2007 06:18PM

The figure of 20,000 euros comes from the Gardai pricing each pill at ten euro. The article states that she was caught with 2000 pills.

Its not a small amount of pills either and to be honest Im firmly of the view that where she lives has something to do with it.

I love how many people are posting that with anti drug views feel for some reason that this girl should be treated differently from the "real scumbags" as is regulary stated here.

Pot its kettle on line 2.

Boston · 30-03-2007 06:38PM

She cooperated with the Gardi, end of story like

seamus · 30-03-2007 06:41PM

Blush_01 wrote:

That's the most stupidly AH response I've ever heard. Normal people get shocks and deal with them, they don't turn around and use said shock as an excuse to deal drugs. My dad suffered heart failure last year - should I check his jeep out just in case? OOh, I wonder if I'll find crack under the floor covering.

Shocks affect different people in different ways. It's not about suddenly doing something because you have an excuse that can get you out of jail.

Lads the Key thing here is "cooperated to the highest degree with the gardaí" That more then anything else is probably why she's not in jail.

Yep. That's pretty much most of "the circumstances" I was referring to

dermot_sheehan · 30-03-2007 06:48PM

There are several exceptions to the mandatory penalty provisions of s. 27(3A) of the Misuse of Drugs Act for a first time conviction
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA10Y1999S5.html

including early co-coperation with gardai and pelading guilty,

The new Criminal Justice Bill will restrict these provisions, for example these exemptions from the mandatory penalty won't apply for a second offence.

CiaranC · 30-03-2007 07:00PM

event wrote:

eh, what?

the girl was transporting drugs lads.

she was aiding these 'real scumbags'

should have got jail time, no doubt about it

If we start throwing these people in jail, where are we going to get our drugs from? Use the loaf mate

griffdaddy · 30-03-2007 07:01PM

i hate de way dem bleedin' poshies do be getting off for everything dat dey do be doin', if dat was sumone from talla dey'd be done for dat dey wud:p

Dave! · 30-03-2007 07:08PM

seamus wrote:

Each case on its own tbh. Assuming that this girl had no previous convictions, I think that's a fairly reasonable sentence, given the circumstances.

I don't think it's a case of "Good background, no jail", but they would rather look on the person's ordinary character as a measure. Someone who has been arrested/charged multiple times on drugs offences, is clearly not the kind of person who "just made a really dumb mistake". Diabetes can come as a bit of a shock to people, and it seems fairly reasonable to me that it could have altered her outlook life, which is why she'd be happy to do something like this.

IMO, in cases of serious disorder or violence, it's more a case, "Ah poor pet was beaten as a child and had an alcoholic father, sure give him a suspended sentence. That guy has a wheelchair to get around, he'll be grand". Whereas if you've a good background, you get the book thrown at you because you're seen as having no excuse.

Yeh

Gyalist · 30-03-2007 07:21PM

Heh. I know this girl very well though I haven't seen her for over a year. She's been a diagnosed diabetic since I first met her which is about 8 years ago when she went to secondary school at Stratford College. Her father owns a few pubs around Dublin.

I have to say that I'm very surprised at this turn of events. She must have gotten involved with the wrong crowd. Hope that she's learned her lesson.

faceman · 30-03-2007 07:26PM

if her doing community service results in her not re-offending then it was a good decision in court.

Sleepy · 30-03-2007 07:26PM

2000 pills equals €20000 my arse.

"Retail" a pill costs about a fiver. Now multiply that by the number of pills and you get €10k which still isn't a fair valuation for that quantity since the more you buy, the cheaper you get them (due to less people having to get their cut). Come on, surely the cops have seen layer cake by now?

I'd say she had about 6k worth of pills on her tbh.

Boston · 30-03-2007 07:33PM

Sleepy wrote:

2000 pills equals €20000 my arse.

"Retail" a pill costs about a fiver. Now multiply that by the number of pills and you get €10k which still isn't a fair valuation for that quantity since the more you buy, the cheaper you get them (due to less people having to get their cut). Come on, surely the cops have seen layer cake by now?

I'd say she had about 6k worth of pills on her tbh.

In fairness the end user would probably be spending 10 euro a pill, espcially the ones she would be selling to.

stepbar · 30-03-2007 07:57PM

I dont think jail would have been the correct option in this case. I think the parents / UCD have a lot to answer for. College can be a daunting experience for some people. UCD prob didnt offer a lot of help to her when she was struggling. Like its even tough to get proper notes out of most lecturers. Her parents overreacted bigtime. Perhaps the "tough love" approach was the wrong one to take. It sounds like she was suffering from depression, the last thing the needed was her parents telling her to go out and get a job.

I think community service will do her the world of good.

ChRoMe · 30-03-2007 08:14PM

Boston wrote:

In fairness the end user would probably be spending 10 euro a pill, espcially the ones she would be selling to.

Id find it very difficult to believe that people can still sell one pill for a tenner those days are long gone.

Also to Sleepy: Why are you surprised that the cops artifically inflate the value of drugs that they confiscate? The gardai know exactly what the story is with the value of drugs. But take this offical line to make them look better.

Saying you caught somebody for 20,000 grands worth when in reality it was 2-3 which number would you prefare to report to the press?

Good backround, no jail for you

Comments