It's official: Gardai are above the law.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 02:01PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Morally yes of course.

As regards what punishment he gets though, he was off duty so his career should be irrelevant. He did not do what he did in relation to his career.

His career should be irrelevant, you say?
Then he should get exactly what anyone else would get, and not walk free "because he's a Gard".

Or does such irrelevance only factor in when it helps him?

cosmicfart · 27-05-2011 02:01PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Ah now, read the link in the OP. The poster even quoted the most important bit

On that basis the sentence was suspended.

they should have special prisons for police, bankers and priests, ones were they can be openly flogged at will by their victims. pricks

damoz · 27-05-2011 02:02PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

tommyhaas wrote: »

Have to say, that's up there with the stupidest comments I've read on here[?QUOTE]

It's a perfectly valid question actually and I think can all see the answer would be no.

In all likelyhood he would not be in jail, how many times do we hear on the the news 'so-and-so has received a 5 years sentence with the last three suspended' or ' a five year suspended sentence?

I think your missing the point. He was sentenced yesterday - 18 months with 12 suspended. Today he has the whole 18 months suspended purely beacuse he was a Garda.

Thats the only point for disucussion as i see it. Forget about other unrelated cases.

The fact he got the remaining 6 months off purely because of his occupation stinks to high heaven.

Wile E. Coyote · 27-05-2011 02:02PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

His career should be irrelevant, you say?
Then he should get exactly what anyone else would get, and not walk free "because he's a Gard".

Or does such irrelevance only factor in when it helps him?

Yes he should get exactly the same sentance as what anyone in a similar situation would get and unfortunately thats to walk free.

Posted earlier:

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/boxers-brutal-attack-in-nightclubs-toilet-2577094.html

Nijmegen · 27-05-2011 02:02PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Just a little advise; You might find it easier to get people to see your point if you were a little more helpful pointing out where it is.

Anyhoo I looked at the link and I still where his career made a difference to sentence except in relation to where he will serve it.

OK. Let me go slowly with the facts:

The judge said that he had administered an 'unmerciful beating' to the victim, and gave an 18 month sentence last night, with 12 months suspended, so he would serve 6.

Yesterday, Garda Dean Foley, who is from Blarney, was given an 18-month sentence with 12 months suspended, after he pleaded guilty to the serious assault of a man in Cork city while he was off duty.

Then today, they returned to discuss a point of law, namely that:

Today, Mr Foley's Defence Counsel Donal O'Sullivan told the court that he had failed to mention yesterday a principal in law which accepted that some mitigation in sentencing is granted to former guards and prison officers because they were likely to suffer more in prison.

He told the court that prison officers have said that his client, who is likely to lose his job, will be taken to the Midlands Prison where he will be isolated from other prisoners in a specific wing, kept under close supervision and restricted in his movements.

So, he was given an 18 month sentence because of the crime. He had 12 months suspended because of his guilty plea, his plea of regret, etc.

He then had the final 6 months suspended today specifically because he is a Garda.

AudreyHepburn · 27-05-2011 02:03PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Does ordinary joe get his sentence suspended on the grounds that he is a garda? Didn't think so. Ordinary joe would be doing 6 months.

WHY is irrelevant really. It simpyl should not be the case for anyone that has committed a crime, Garda or otherwise.

Biggins · 27-05-2011 02:04PM

userod wrote: »

The Gaurd was given favouritism. That was acknowledged in court. While your opinion that he should be seen equally is one I agree with, that is not the case. The law entitles him to extra leniency due to his occupation.

...And to be truthfully fair, I can see both sides of the argument.
Morally, such cases seem just not fair.
In practicality though, no offender should be knowingly put in increased harms way if the state knows there exists a possibility of such a greater risk to ANY offender.

Not making excuses for this (or any other such case), just trying ones best to see a clearer understanding of the thought process behind such controversial decisions.

Bannasidhe · 27-05-2011 02:04PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

His career should be irrelevant, you say?
Then he should get exactly what anyone else would get, and not walk free "because he's a Gard".

Or does such irrelevance only factor in when it helps him?

Exactly. He was sentenced to serve 6 months custodial sentence which was suspended purely and simply because he was a Guard. If his occupation is irrelevant then surely the counter argument to suspending the sentence is he wasn't actually a Guard at the time as he was off duty.

AudreyHepburn · 27-05-2011 02:05PM

Nijmegen wrote: »

OK. Let me go slowly with the facts:

The judge said that he had administered an 'unmerciful beating' to the victim, and gave an 18 month sentence last night, with 12 months suspended, so he would serve 6.

Then today, they returned to discuss a point of law, namely that:

So, he was given an 18 month sentence because of the crime. He had 12 months suspended because of his guilty plea, his plea of regret, etc.

He then had the final 6 months suspended today specifically because he is a Garda.

How about trying that again minus the patronising? Then maybe I'll listen.

znv6i3h7kqf9ys · 27-05-2011 02:05PM

I wonder if this logic would also apply to pedos. "Eh sorry your honour this guy shouldn't go to jail cause his crimes were so sick he will suffer more in prison"

Wolfe Tone · 27-05-2011 02:05PM

Biggins wrote: »

...And to be truthfully fair, I can see both sides of the argument.
Morally, such cases seem just not fair.
In practicality though, no offender should be knowingly put in increased harms way if the state knows there exists a possibility of such a greater risk to ANY offender.

Not making excuses for this (or any other such case), just trying ones best to see a clearer understanding of the thought process behind such controversial decisions.

There are facilities in jails to protect people from other inmates Biggins.

damoz · 27-05-2011 02:06PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How about trying that again minus the patronising? Then maybe I'll listen.

Im not sure that would work - its been explained several times and you dont seem to get it.

And for that reason, im out.

Nijmegen · 27-05-2011 02:06PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How about trying that again minus the patronising? Then maybe I'll listen.

I apologise if you think or it came across that I was being patronising. I was attempting to explain the facts in the step by step manner you were requesting, to make a link between the complete suspension of the sentence and his position as a Garda.

AudreyHepburn · 27-05-2011 02:07PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

His career should be irrelevant, you say?
Then he should get exactly what anyone else would get, and not walk free "because he's a Gard".

Or does such irrelevance only factor in when it helps him?

Yes he should and unfortunatly he did.

Biggins · 27-05-2011 02:07PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

There are facilities in jails to protect people from other inmates Biggins.

No argument there - and when deemed appropriate, should be used.

userod · 27-05-2011 02:07PM

Biggins wrote: »

...And to be truthfully fair, I can see both sides of the argument.
Morally, such cases seem just not fair.
In practicality though, no offender should be knowingly put in increased harms way if the state knows there exists a possibility of such a greater risk to ANY offender.

Not making excuses for this (or any other such case), just trying ones best to see a clearer understanding of the thought process behind such controversial decisions.

True that. But I wonder how many criminals have been offered leniency because their have enemies/competing gangs etc are also behind bars in various prisons and they may be in danger if they go in there? Or is that a bit of an unfair analogy?

kopfan77 · 27-05-2011 02:08PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Does ordinary joe get his sentence suspended on the grounds that he is a garda? Didn't think so. Ordinary joe would be doing 6 months.

Again disagree with you...admittedly i was speaking generally in my first post and not on about this case in particular as I do not know enough about it. What Im saying is that its not just an ex-garda as in this case who benefit from judges and a legal system that seems to live in its own little bubble...ive read stories (cant provide links or proof before people go posting that!!) where in similar instances, "ordinary joe" has also received suspended sentence. In your opinion if it was an ordinary joe in this case he would have done time....in my opinion he wouldnt, as the legal system in this mess of a country is exactly that....a mess. Balance always seems to be on the side of the accused rather than the victim...whether that accused is an ordinary joe or not...personally i dont see a distinction

Nijmegen · 27-05-2011 02:08PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes he should and unfortunatly he did.

No, he didn't. A person who is not a Gardai would be beginning their 6 month custodial sentence today.

prinz · 27-05-2011 02:08PM

Maci Numerous Mocha wrote: »

I wonder if this logic would also apply to pedos. "Eh sorry your honour this guy shouldn't go to jail cause his crimes were so sick he will suffer more in prison"

It already does, that's why you have facilities specially for sex offenders etc. There is no facility where members of AGS and the Prison Service are kept segregated as far as I am aware, and as the saying goes, build it and they will come.

AudreyHepburn · 27-05-2011 02:09PM

Nijmegen wrote: »

I apologise if you think or it came across that I was being patronising. I was attempting to explain the facts in the step by step manner you were requesting, to make a link between the complete suspension of the sentence and his position as a Garda.

You said "I'll go slowly with the facts". People generally post that type of thing to be patronising.

Look you may be right, but I don't take kindly to being treated like I'm stupid or thick.

humanji · 27-05-2011 02:09PM

People get suspended sentences for good behavior before they even set foot in a prison. Maybe people should be ranting at the whole system instead of one little loophole?

Wolfe Tone · 27-05-2011 02:09PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes he should and unfortunatly he did.

NO HE DIDN'T

He got 18 months with 12 suspended. THATS what everyone else would get.

Because he is an all conquering Garda he got the extra six suspended the next day. Solely because he is a Garda.

Nijmegen · 27-05-2011 02:10PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You said "I'll go slowly with the facts". People generally post that type of thing to be patronising.

Look you may be right, but I don't take kindly to being treated like I'm stupid or thick.

I do apologise if you took offence, and I hope you will accept that apology and we can return to the substance of the thread.

AudreyHepburn · 27-05-2011 02:10PM

Nijmegen wrote: »

No, he didn't. A person who is not a Gardai would be beginning their 6 month custodial sentence today.

Not very likely and you know it. This is Ireland, our laws are mess as you are aware and people can get away with an awful lot.

_feedback_ · 27-05-2011 02:10PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes he should and unfortunatly he did.

No, yesterday he got what anyone would get. 18 months (12 suspended)

Today he got the last six suspended, as a direct result of being a guard.

Biggins · 27-05-2011 02:10PM

userod wrote: »

True that. But I wonder how many criminals have been offered leniency because their have enemies/competing gangs etc are also behind bars in various prisons and they may be in danger if they go in there? Or is that a bit of an unfair analogy?

No, you right, its a good point mentioned.
Justice sadly is never a fair thing 100% (or close to it).
All we can try to do is keep the scales balanced. Sometimes we fail badly.
To err is human.

Wile E. Coyote · 27-05-2011 02:10PM

Nijmegen wrote: »

No, he didn't. A person who is not a Gardai would be beginning their 6 month custodial sentence today.

No they wouldn't because anyone else wouldn't have been given the 6 month sentence to begin with.

Blazer · 27-05-2011 02:11PM

humanji wrote: »

Well it makes sense to not throw a garda into a prison with the people they helped put away. Just take a look at the documentary "Tango & Cash" to see how it can end up.

worked out pretty well for Cash...got to bang a smokin hot and young

Terri Hatcher

Wolfe Tone · 27-05-2011 02:11PM

kopfan77 wrote: »

Again disagree with you...admittedly i was speaking generally in my first post and not on about this case in particular as I do not know enough about it. What Im saying is that its not just an ex-garda as in this case who benefit from judges and a legal system that seems to live in its own little bubble...ive read stories (cant provide links or proof before people go posting that!!) where in similar instances, "ordinary joe" has also received suspended sentence. In your opinion if it was an ordinary joe in this case he would have done time....in my opinion he wouldnt, as the legal system in this mess of a country is exactly that....a mess. Balance always seems to be on the side of the accused rather than the victim...whether that accused is an ordinary joe or not...personally i dont see a distinction

Seriously read that report.

He got 6 months in jail with 12 suspended. When it was pointed out that he was a garda the next day, solely for this reason, he got that six months suspended. If he was not a garda he would be in jail, simple as.

I agree about the system being a joke btw.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 02:11PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes he should and unfortunatly he did.

*facedesk*

Have you read the feckin' article or not?! It was SPECIFICALLY because he was a gard. I'm arguing that there should be no exceptions WHATSOEVER to the law. None. An adult with a reasonable mental capacity should receive a sentence for a crime. The law should END there. There shouldn't be all of these "unless they're a Gard, or a fraudulent banker, or a member of a religious order, or a major contributer to the government's party funding, or a foreign diplomat whose persecution would be embarrassing..... etc".

It's official: Gardai are above the law.

Comments