O'Donoghue Not Guilty of Murder

It wasn't me! wrote: »

For those who complain about sentence leniency, do you complain that fines for misdemeanors are too low, and that other crimes should all be far more harshly sentenced? If not, why not? Or is it the notion that "He killed A LITTLE BOY!!! The murderin' baxtard!"? And do you then ignore the fact that every crime has to be treated utterly dispassionately by the criminal justice system, regardless of who died, or what age they were? It's a little trying hearing people moan about this, when those who actually dealt legally with the case are the ones who remained dispassionate and handed down the sentence in accordance with an all-encompassing view of the actual facts, not the libellous suppositions and opinions of those utterly unqualified. I don't pretend to be capable of judging and sentencing in a criminal trial, which is why we have a justice system, where people have devoted their lives to it, and those are the people in whom we place our trust. What else would you have? Lynch mobs were referred to earlier, and that he should have gotten more punishment in prison, and where is the justice in that? People have complained that there's no justice in the sentence that was handed down, and personally, I'd like to know what qualifies them to say that, over Judge Carney, who's been a High Court judge for nigh on seventeen years now. Either we have and accept a legal system, or we don't, and who would prefer that? The Irish system is relatively fair, giving emphasis to rehabilitation in prison systems, as opposed to crass punishment, which really serves little good.

This is a very good post and a very good read.. i agree with you.
But regardless of the facts of the case i feel, as i have the right to, that a 3 year sentence is too light.

Carney is no stranger to critisim for handing down lenient sentences in the past, but i do acknowledge, that 95% of the ppl dont know the full facts of the case and therefore unable to comment subjectively

This is how i see this whole situation:

Robert was messing with O'Donoghue
Adult was having a bad day and lost the rag
O'Donoghue killed him accidently
O'Donoghue freaked out and hid the body
O'Donoghue was sentenced to manslaughter as he should have been
O'Donoghue done his time and should now be left alone

Simple as

Fighting Irish wrote: »

This is how i see this whole situation:

Robert was messing with O'Donoghue
Adult was having a bad day and lost the rag
O'Donoghue killed him accidently
O'Donoghue freaked out and hid the body
O'Donoghue was sentenced to manslaughter as he should have been
O'Donoghue done his time and should now be left alone

Simple as

So he 'lost the rag' yet killed him 'accidentally'? How does that work? If he was taken with a fit with of anger then it was murder and in my opinion that's exactly what this was.

Fighting Irish wrote:

Why do us the public need to know what happened?

Are you serious? The judicial system needs to be conducted in a fair and open manner for the benefit of society. We need to know what happened for the safety of our citizens.

Regardless of how you view what went down, what we do know is this guy COVERED UP his actions and thus behaved in a manner that is reprehensible.

Would the people defending this guy be willing to leave him alone with a loved one the age of Robert Holohan? I think not.

And let's also factor in the role of Justice Carney in this case. He's been involved in some of the most questionable decicions of recent times. I took these from some articles on RTE, BreakingNews.ie and the Examiner...

'Man given four years for stabbing after killing their baby' - July, 2001

A man, Derek Hickey, stabbed and killed his 14 week old baby and also stabbed his partner, Sinéad Smullen, after a row at the flat they shared in Sinéad's native Newbridge, Co Kildare. Hickey stabbed the child six times.

"We didn't want her to know it was a frenzied attack. It was like Hannibal Lector what he did to that child," said Seanie Smullen, the child's grandmother.

Hickey received four years for the attack on Sinead.

Mr Justice Paul Carney said the crime warranted at least 10 years but by law he could only impose five. And, even then, he had to take time off to recognise Hickey's guilty plea.

She left the court in tears, crying both with anger and grief. "It's not enough," she said of the four year sentence for the scars she bears after Hickey plunged a kitchen knife into her back and neck. "It's not enough altogether," she added, with the knowledge that the life sentence for Leilah is unlikely to extend beyond 14 years.

'Suspended sentence for killing 18-month-old baby' - May 2002

A former soldier was given a five years suspended prison sentence by a judge at the Central Criminal Court today after a jury found him guilty of the manslaughter of the 18 months old son of his first cousin.

Mr Justice Paul Carney said a relatively small quantity of poitin had "aunique, inexplicable and extraordinary effect" on John Reilly and "he had no control over his body or his actions" and was functioning like an epileptic or diabetic in a bad state of a hypo or hyper.

He said he was satisfied that a prison sentence would serve no purpose and he sentenced Reilly to five years imprisonment suspended on Reilly’s own bond of €1,000, on condition that he keep the peace for five years and that he does not carry a Leatherman (a multi-tool knife used in the killing) or any other similar device.

"The accused is going to have to live with these events for the rest of his life. I believe that he met the case with dignity," he added.

'Call for DPP to examine male rape sentence' - March 2005

The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has called on the Director of Public Prosecutions to examine a decision by the Central Criminal Court to allow a youth convicted of raping another man to walk free.

17-year-old Gary Davis of Kenilworth Lane, Rathmines, admitted sexually assaulting a 50-year-old man at Dominick Street Flats in November 2001. He was 15 years old at the time.

This afternoon, Mr Justice Paul Carney handed down a three year suspended sentence for the offence.

Mr Justice Carney said he took into consideration Davis' young age, his expression of remorse and his guilty plea.

The chairwoman of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, Breda Allen, said the sentence may discourage other victims from reporting rape.

'Suspended sentence in manslaughter case' - March 2005

A 35-year-old Dublin man has been given a suspended sentence for the manslaughter of a former All-Ireland boxing champion turned drug dealer and addict.

Anthony Burke from Clancarty Road, Donnycarney, was convicted by a jury last month at the Central Criminal Court of the unlawful killing of Joseph Sutcliffe, aged 32, from Fatima Mansions in Rialto.

Mr Sutcliffe died when a single stab wound to the abdomen cut an artery in October 2002.

Burke, who is the registered carer for his father at the family home, had never been to Fatima Mansions before that night. He got involved in a brawl and believed he had only nicked Mr Sutcliffe.

In handing down the suspended sentence, Mr Justice Carney said he did not feel any purpose would be served by jailing Burke.

'Six year sentence for Cork rapist of American woman' - December 19th, 2005

A Cork man who orally raped an American student and then claimed he was a commanding officer in the IRA has been given a six-year sentence by Mr Justice Paul Carney at the Central Criminal Court.

He told her to wait where she was for 15 minutes but she ran after a few minutes to a nearby house where a woman would not let her in but called the gardaí.

Healy became violent when apprehended and asked about a scratch on his face. He struck the garda, who was forced to take out his baton and hit him with it, but then overcame the garda and grabbed his radio before he ran off in the direction of a cul de sac. He was caught again when the garda enlisted the help of two civilians.

He pleaded guilty to oral rape and aggravated sexual assault of the woman on November 7, 2004, and stealing a Garda radio valued €2,000.

The victim told Mr Justice Carney her life has never been the same since. Simple things such as going to the grocery store, church or a mailbox had become "terrifying tasks" she was unable to complete without the assistance of a friend.

Healy had threatened to murder her and she decided that "rather than leave her body to be violated by a pervert" she would surrender. "He took my chastity," she added.

Mr Justice Carney placed Healy on the sex offenders register and said his crime was "quite frightful". He imposed six-year sentences on the oral rape and aggravated sexual assault charges and three years on the robbery, suspending the last 18 months of the sentences.

'O'Donoghue sentenced to four years in jail' - January, 2006

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

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.

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.

He said he was dealing with manslaughter and not a cover-up.

He described the cover up that followed the killing as appalling and added that there could be no excusing what was done and no mitigating it.

He said he was not punishing O'Donoghue expressly in respect of the cover up, although it came into play as part of the impact on the victims and it was in that regard he took it into account.

'Cover up may not affect O’Donoghue’s sentence' - July 2006

O’Donoghue moved the boy’s bicycle some distance from his home and then wrapped his body in plastic and dumped it in a ditch at Inch Strand where it was not found for eight days. He also lied about the circumstances in which he last saw the schoolboy and deliberately tried to put gardaí off the scent by taking part in search parties and challenging officers when they failed to find the boy in the days immediately following his disappearance.

Such behaviour could be classed as obstructing a garda investigation and in court this week counsel for the State, Shane Murphy SC, said the trial judge, Mr Justice Paul Carney, had erred in not taking it into consideration when deciding the length of sentence.

Mr Justice Carney specifically referred to the issue on sentencing day last January when he said: “I am dealing with a manslaughter and not a cover-up.” He said the State could have prosecuted O’Donoghue in relation to the cover-up but did not.

“It could have formed the basis of substantive charges and they were not laid,” he said. His comments prompted Justice Minister Michael McDowell to publicly defend the DPP. “Sometimes there are aspects of cases which the public does not understand and sometimes it is not easy for the DPP to explain them, because there are all sorts of complex technical reasons and legal reasons,” he said at the time.

In the Court of Criminal Appeal this week, Shane Murphy insisted Mr Justice Carney was wrong not to view the cover-up as an aggravating factor. “We submit that was an incorrect approach,” he said.

However, Mr Justice Diarmuid O’Donovan, one of the three judges hearing the appeal, challenged Mr Murphy to explain why the State was making an issue of the cover-up when it was not part of the original case against O’Donoghue. “It was up to the DPP to press other charges and he did not,” he said.

Mr Murphy said Mr Justice Carney had not specified what other charges he was referring to, but Ms Justice Fidelma Macken, who chaired the three-judge panel, interrupted him. “But the DPP could have pressed other charges,” she said.

Mr Justice O’Donovan said O’Donoghue could have been charged under the 1976 Criminal Law Act which makes it a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in jail, to provide false information and waste garda time. There was also legislation which made it an offence to destroy a body or prevent a proper burial. Mr Murphy argued that the 1976 Act did not apply as it referred to cases involving two or more individuals, not a single person. He said the other legislation had not been successfully prosecuted for some time.

O’Donoghue was acquitted of murdering Robert, his next door neighbour, but was convicted of manslaughter after admitting that he grabbed the 11-year-old around the neck and held him in a headlock because he was annoying him. Robert died of strangulation.

If the judges dismiss the cover-up as grounds for a longer sentence, they must still consider the three other arguments put forward by the State, which says Mr Justice Carney was wrong not to take into account the fact that O’Donoghue was almost twice the age of his victim and much bigger and stronger.

The medical evidence suggested the attack on Robert was more serious than “at the horseplay end of the scale” as Mr Justice Carney characterised it.

Mr Murphy also said Mr Justice Carney gave O’Donoghue too much credit for confessing his crime before gardaí arrested him. He said by that time gardaí had found O’Donoghue’s fingerprint on a plastic bag wrapped around Robert’s body and were closing in on him.

'Victim condemns rape sentence' - 13th March, 2007

A rape victim who watched her attacker walk free from court with a suspended sentence today said she will never trust the justice system again. The devastated woman, who said she felt on trial, was even forced to travel back to her home town on the same train as convicted rapist Adam Keane.

Mr Justice Paul Carney handed down a three-year suspended sentence at the Central Criminal Court in Dublin yesterday. The sentence was based on a previous ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeal, he added.

"I really didn't want it go to court in February in the first place. It was the hardest week of my life, to go up in that stand and give every detail of my life explored by the DPP and his barrister and when he was found guilty I was so relieved and I really believed justice would be done.

"But yesterday it wasn't, there was no justice done for me at all and now I'm back to square one where I was when I first got raped. I feel worse now."

Mary said that after the attack she and her children had to leave their home, where they had lived for nine years, and moved back in with her parents because she was afraid. The family have since moved home twice.

I've been keeping track of Justice Carney for some time now and I tell you this guy is an absolute disgrace and has been responsible for some farcical sentences in recent years. It's no surprise to me that O'Donoghue got such a lenient sentence as you just have to look at who was judging the case.

Carney is to blame here.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

So he 'lost the rag' yet killed him 'accidentally'? How does that work? If he was taken with a fit with of anger then it was murder and in my opinion that's exactly what this was.



Are you serious? The judicial system needs to be conducted in a fair and open manner for the benefit of society. We need to know what happened for the safety of our citizens.

Regardless of how you view what went down, what we do know is this guy COVERED UP his actions and thus behaved in a manner that is reprehensible.

Would the people defending this guy be willing to leave him alone with a loved one the age of Robert Holohan? I think not.

And let's also factor in the role of Justice Carney in this case. He's been involved in some of the most questionable decicions of recent times. I took these from some articles on RTE, BreakingNews.ie and the Examiner...

'Man given four years for stabbing after killing their baby' - July, 2001



'Suspended sentence for killing 18-month-old baby' - May 2002



'Call for DPP to examine male rape sentence' - March 2005



'Suspended sentence in manslaughter case' - March 2005



'Six year sentence for Cork rapist of American woman' - December 19th, 2005



'O'Donoghue sentenced to four years in jail' - January, 2006



'Cover up may not affect O’Donoghue’s sentence' - July 2006



'Victim condemns rape sentence' - 13th March, 2007



I've been keeping track of Justice Carney for some time now and I tell you this guy is an absolute disgrace and has been responsible for some farcical sentences in recent years. It's no surprise to me that O'Donoghue got such a lenient sentence as you just have to look at who was judging the case.

Carney is to blame here.

So what do you want to happen to donoghue?

snyper the difference is wod killed the boy by accident.

the farmer defo planned to at least the knacker

I have not seen the Prime time show?

What do we mean by accident exactly?

Crazy Christ wrote: »

Are you serious? I have lost the rag many a time growing up, in a house with three teenage brothers, rarely a day went by where somebody didn't lose the rag and end up having a scuffle. So he was stupid in that he 'lost the rag' and had a go at him. He ended up killing him. He didn't intend to kill him. How the hell is that murder?

I've highlighted the key word for you there - a scuffle. In other words, it didn't result in a DEATH.

Losing the rag is not an excuse for KILLING SOMEBODY. If you can't control your emotion then you deserve the consequences which follow. If a man gets upset at his wife and 'loses the rag' and kills her is that not an intention to kill? It's not like O'Donoghue was possessed at the time. HE DID IT.

Crazy Christ wrote:

As for that rubbish, about leaving him alone with a child of Robert Holohan's age, just proves my point.

It proves no point and you didn't answer it. Rubbish? Don't make me laugh. Would you allow this man deemed fit for society to be present with someone in your family who was of Robert Holohan's age? I doubt it. If you would then you'd probably allow Michael Jackson to babysit them.

Crazy Christ wrote:

From my experience of Carney (his work in UCC) the man is extremely competent and has an impressive knowledge of jurisprudence, he is known in the profession as someone who is not swayed by public opinion and doesn't simply apply popular sentences, unlike many judges, who are happy to give the most uncontroversial decision in order not to draw attention to themselves, which in my opinion is not a judge's function.

From my observation he's a man who is partial to seeing his name in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. Some of his sentences have defied common sense. Read more below for evidence of this.

Fighting Irish wrote:

So what do you want to happen to donoghue?

I wanted him to serve a life sentence for the murder of a young child. All of this 'he didn't mean it' BS doesn't wash with me. O'Donoghue's not an animal who is a slave to his impulses. He's a human being who knew what he was doing and who knew what he was doing following the incident when he assisted efforts to find a body he himself had killed.

JohnnySkeleton wrote:

To Mr. Nice Guy:

Your indictment of Judge Carney is as follows - for a judge who has been sitting for what, 17 years, and who passes more sentences than any other central criminal court judge, you have chosen 7 cases to show that he is a disgrace.

Not so. I did a simple Google search and found that his name can be found connected to some of the most controversial cases of recent times. I've probably left many cases out. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to hand out a worthy sentence. My belief is that this man is not fit for the position he holds.

JohnnySkeleton wrote:

In the first one he gave the maximum sentence permissible by statute.

You must have missed this bit...

And, even then, he had to take time off to recognise Hickey's guilty plea.

Yeah because you need to recognise a guilty plea when dealing with a baby-killer don't you?

JohnnySkeleton wrote:

In the second he was dealing with a unique case of drunken automatism (if it was an epileptic fit the man would not have been charged).

He commented that it had "a unique, inexplicable and extraordinary effect" on John Reilly and "he had no control over his body or his actions" and was functioning like an epileptic or diabetic in a bad state of a hypo or hyper.

So because it was deemed 'unique' and 'extraordinary' he gives the benefit of doubt to the individual and states a prison term would "serve no purpose". Farcical stuff. What happened to punishing criminals hmm?

JohnnySkeleton wrote:

In the third one the article is self contradictory (it says rape, but it was really sexual assault) and in any event, the offender was a child. You can't sentence a child to a similar term of imprisonment as an adult.

Wow you must be a lawyer because I'm detecting a distinct lack of morals here. Leaving aside the Johnny Cochrane-like first sentence, how can you defend the perpetrator - 15 - saying he's a 'child'? Take ten years off his life and you have a child. At 15 this disgusting cretin knew exactly what he was doing and got a slap on the wrist by Herr Carney.

JohnnySkeleton wrote:

In the fourth one he imposes a 6 year sentence. What is your problem with that?

The individual attacked an officer, orally raped a woman and threatened to murder her and Carney himself said the incident was "quite frightful". Result - six years. This is justice? No, this is bullsh*t.

And you missed the one about Carney giving a suspended sentence to a guy who caused the death of a boxing champion via a stab to the abdomen. Can't lock someone up for a minor crime like that can we?! This is Ireland after all. You just have to look at Carney's reasoning...

In handing down the suspended sentence, Mr Justice Carney said he did not feel any purpose would be served by jailing Burke.

He wouldn't would he?

JohnnySkeleton wrote:

Finally, you mention the Adam Keane case. I will grant you that the sentence was very much on the lenient side, but at the same time, Judge Carney was making it clear that he was applying the principles of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The whole country knew that sentence was a farce so your attempt to defend this one is really desperate.

JohnnySkeleton wrote:

Apart from the fact that you are cherry picking your articles (for example, closer scrutiny would reveal that Judge Carney made a controversial decision late last year when he imposed the maximum sentence on a plea of manslaughter), the examples you have chosen, bar the Adam Keane case, disclose nothing wrong with Judge Carney.

I cherry picked nothing. These articles are merely some of the most controversial cases the State has seen and I wager I've probbaly missed out on a few more. The evidence speaks for itself.

You neglected to comment on the O'Donoghue articles because the second one shows legal professionals actively questioning Carney's sentences.

So those within the judicial system, The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and families affected by the crimes themselves have all come out and queried his sentences so while you want to portray him as a bastion of integrity, there is a body of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Here is a link to an excellent article in the Sunday Business Post five years ago by Kieron Wood on Justice Carney. A time when many of his most controversial setences had not yet come about.

I suggest you read the full piece but this bit interested me in particular...

"One court reporter who has covered Carney's court for many years said: 'He always has one eye on the media, and, if he spots a reporter whom he doesn't recognise, he will often get his tipstaff to ask them who they are.

"'He has a reputation for being grumpy, but I think it's more that he finds it difficult to relate to people socially. Basically, he is a shy person - though he loves publicity and always seems to be trying to stir things up. He enjoys being controversial and likes to provoke the Oireachtas into thinking about the law.'"

This is a guy who wields enormous influence and seems to enjoy seeing his name mentioned nationally. Apparently he also backs the televising of court cases unlike most of his colleagues. Can't say I'm surprised.

The Padraig Nally case, the Holohan/O'Donoghue case, the Adam Keane case - all controversial cases in Ireland due to the nature of the sentences imposed.

The man responsible for these sentences - Justice Paul Carney.

The same man with a history of dubious sentences and a reported love for publicity and for stirring things up.

Notice the pattern that is emerging here?

You know where I stand on the matter and I would simply urge anyone reading this to keep an eye out for cases involving Justice Carney in future.

ejmaztec wrote: »

Did anyone refute, or expand on what she had to say, or the reason for subject matter not being brought up in court?

Well, as regards the issue of semen being found on the back of Robert's hand, the real reason why that piece of evidence didn't go through to the court has been well buried by most of the media, but I did read at one stage that the semen was not that of Wayne himself, but that of a close family member.

So the semen wasn't Wayne's.