It's official: Gardai are above the law.

LizT · 27-05-2011 09:34PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I would never have thought punching someone a few times could cause that many broken bones and bleeding to the brain.

If you ever get the chance, go to the NRH in Dun Laoighire or the RABIU in Belfast and see what damage "punching someone a few times" can cause. It can cause serious damage.

MagicSean · 27-05-2011 09:35PM

RoverJames wrote: »

I take it you've never done any boxing, kickboxing etc ?
ie you don't really know what you are talking about.

No I haven't. Thats kinda my point.

padd b1975 · 27-05-2011 09:36PM

cordub wrote: »

EHHHHHHHHHHH judge forgot was being sarcastic !! It was his legal rep that forgot to mention the sub claus in his case yesterday ;);) silly solicitor yeah right !!! and it does matter about how he would be treated . wasnt that the whole bases of the reasoning behind why his sentece was changed to suspended ie the harseness of prison on the gardai or am I wrong in this fact too???? me thinks you would want to spend a few more days observing a few more days at court cases !!! ;)

I stand over all posts made by me in this thread.

Liam Byrne · 27-05-2011 09:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Such exceptions and inconsistencies are an absolute blot on civilized society. Equality should cover EVERYTHING.

I'd agree.

So if the day that the thugs with 10 convictions who are "known to Gardai" are put off the street forever coincides with 9 more convictions for this guy, I'd want to see both jailed forever.

What I would want to see, however, is this guy get fired. Immediately. Having a conviction is incompatible with upholding the law.

27-05-2011 09:39PM

I believe up in Templemore the folks are taught a little self defence, perhaps how to throw a punch, how to block one etc. Now having sparred with a Garda or two their training is nothing special but against an intoxicated chap that has no such training it's more than enough to cause serious damage.

To think that a few punches could not break facial bones, knock out teeth and cause brain injury is extremely naive. I honestly reckon you must be taking the p1ss if you think it couldn't cause that damage.

padd b1975 · 27-05-2011 09:42PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Have to say my interpretation was that his legal council screwed up, hence the re appearance and change of 'plan' from the judge.

No fruitcake, just a stale few 'Carson's Ginger thins'.

possibly so, given that there is no precedent for a case like this in so far as it was brought by the garda ombudsman a fact which seems to have passed majority of posters by.

LizT · 27-05-2011 09:49PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I didn't ask you. Im basing it on what I've seen in courts.

But this is a public forum, so I can voice my opinion

cordub · 27-05-2011 09:52PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

possibly so, given that there is no precedent for a case like this in so far as it was brought by the garda ombudsman a fact which seems to have passed majority of posters by.

Can you enlighten us to the difference between an ordinary case and one which has been brought by the Garda Ombudsman???

padd b1975 · 27-05-2011 09:57PM

cordub wrote: »

Can you enlighten us to the difference between an ordinary case and one which has been brought by the Garda Ombudsman???

This was the first case of its kind to come before the courts.

cordub · 27-05-2011 10:02PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

This was the first case of its kind to come before the courts.

yep i know that but why was this the first ?? Plenty of garda have been up in court over the last few years but why this case do you know???

Show Time · 27-05-2011 10:05PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Please elaborate? Sure we are all friends here.

See post 385.

padd b1975 · 27-05-2011 10:06PM

cordub wrote: »

yep i know that but why was this the first ?? Plenty of garda have been up in court over the last few years but why this case do you know???

The garda ombudsman was involved in the prosecution.

cordub · 27-05-2011 10:18PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

The garda ombudsman was involved in the prosecution.

Looking at the G O online it seems that the person who was assaulted must have originally made a complaint againist the garda in question rather than a normal assault on the street case?? Am I right in thinking then so the case would have to be adjudicated by the G O panel first ! Therefore the judge would have known way before the case came up the full circumstances of the case so why did he need to be reminded of the clause that in effect allowed the suspended sentence !!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 10:27PM

cordub wrote: »

Looking at the G O online it seems that the person who was assaulted must have originally made a complaint againist the garda in question rather than a normal assault on the street case?? Am I right in thinking then so the case would have to be adjudicated by the G O panel first ! Therefore the judge would have known way before the case came up the full circumstances of the case so why did he need to be reminded of the clause that in effect allowed the suspended sentence !!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

He knew it was a Gard who had made the assault, obviously. He may not have known that Gards are to be shown the most appalling double standards if they end up in court. He probably assumed they were to be treated equally just like anyone else.

I'm not in any way blaming the judge in this case. If the law mandates a double standard that is not the judge's fault. I'm attacking the double standard itself, not the people unfortunate enough to have to implement it.

To be honest I feel judges get an unfair proportion of blame for carrying out the law. They have no power over the law, that's the legislature's responsibility. The blame for this can be placed entirely at the feet of the government, in my view, unless the leniency thing isn't actually a law but a legal "custom". If it's a custom, on the other hand, then it IS the judge's decision and therefore, the judge's fault.

padd b1975 · 27-05-2011 10:27PM

cordub wrote: »

Looking at the G O online it seems that the person who was assaulted must have originally made a complaint againist the garda in question rather than a normal assault on the street case?? Am I right in thinking then so the case would have to be adjudicated by the G O panel first ! Therefore the judge would have known way before the case came up the full circumstances of the case so why did he need to be reminded of the clause that in effect allowed the suspended sentence !!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

yeah think you are spot on. In my opinion the ombudsman deemed the complaint too serious for him to deal with alone. The judge made an error from what I can deduce, in fairness to the judge he was sailing in uncharted waters and quickly saw the error of his ways. Are we cool now as i have to go now and dont want to appear as if I am ignoring you, ok?

cordub · 27-05-2011 10:30PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

yeah think you are spot on. In my opinion the ombudsman deemed the complaint too serious for him to deal with alone. The judge made an error from what I can deduce, in fairness to the judge he was sailing in uncharted waters and quickly saw the error of his ways. Are we cool now as i have to go now and dont want to appear as if I am ignoring you, ok?

night night

:D

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2011 10:33PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It's nothing to do with his crime or extra judicial punishment. It is about who he is. Are you deliberately ignoring this or do you genuinely not get it? It'd like putting a black man in a wing populated by the KKK. They won't care what he was convicted of, all they care about is his colour.

PErhaps you are unaware that there is a system in place for protecting people at risk of being attacked in prison?

You're arguing that it's ok for a paedophile to be attacked because he's done something bad, but not for a Gard because the gard has done something good to warrant the attack. My opinion is that they are identical crimes. Assault is still assault, and assault in prison should not EVER be tolerated. Assault on a paedophile is no better than assault on a Gard - both are extra judicial punishments which are not mandated anywhere in the law.

No member of the public in this Gardas position would have gotten custody. If you can find me the case to the contrary I will gladly concede.

Enlighten me then, for what other category of person who has the capability to be held fully responsible for their decisions, is there a provision which gets them off the hook because of risks inside prison? Name such a group of people and cite the law or custom which grants them leniency?

padd b1975 · 27-05-2011 10:37PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He knew it was a Gard who had made the assault, obviously. He may not have known that Gards are to be shown the most appalling double standards if they end up in court. He probably assumed they were to be treated equally just like anyone else.

I'm not in any way blaming the judge in this case. If the law mandates a double standard that is not the judge's fault. I'm attacking the double standard itself, not the people unfortunate enough to have to implement it.

To be honest I feel judges get an unfair proportion of blame for carrying out the law. They have no power over the law, that's the legislature's responsibility. The blame for this can be placed entirely at the feet of the government, in my view, unless the leniency thing isn't actually a law but a legal "custom". If it's a custom, on the other hand, then it IS the judge's decision and therefore, the judge's fault.

Excellent post.

cordub · 27-05-2011 10:43PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

PErhaps you are unaware that there is a system in place for protecting people at risk of being attacked in prison?

You're arguing that it's ok for a paedophile to be attacked because he's done something bad, but not for a Gard because the gard has done something good to warrant the attack. My opinion is that they are identical crimes. Assault is still assault, and assault in prison should not EVER be tolerated. Assault on a paedophile is no better than assault on a Gard - both are extra judicial punishments which are not mandated anywhere in the law.

Enlighten me then, for what other category of person who has the capability to be held fully responsible for their decisions, is there a provision which gets them off the hook because of risks inside prison? Name such a group of people and cite the law or custom which grants them leniency?

As i have said earlier people in the AT RISK catergory in prison are perfectly SAFE in prison , They are fully protected at all times did you not here it stated by prison offecers at their conference a while ago about the amount of the time they spend looking after protected prisoners???? am just thinking of a recent case of a Prison Officer who was convicted of assault and sentenced to prison , he got NO suspended sentence and I would have thought that prison for him would be even more dangerous considering that he would now effectively be locked up with people that he had previously locked up himself , why was there no so called clause for him in his case??? surely prison would be highly dangerous for him too or are gardai extra special ????

cordub · 27-05-2011 10:44PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

PErhaps you are unaware that there is a system in place for protecting people at risk of being attacked in prison?

You're arguing that it's ok for a paedophile to be attacked because he's done something bad, but not for a Gard because the gard has done something good to warrant the attack. My opinion is that they are identical crimes. Assault is still assault, and assault in prison should not EVER be tolerated. Assault on a paedophile is no better than assault on a Gard - both are extra judicial punishments which are not mandated anywhere in the law.

Enlighten me then, for what other category of person who has the capability to be held fully responsible for their decisions, is there a provision which gets them off the hook because of risks inside prison? Name such a group of people and cite the law or custom which grants them leniency?

As i have said earlier people in the AT RISK catergory in prison are perfectly SAFE in prison , They are fully protected at all times did you not here it stated by prison officers at their conference a while ago about the amount of the time they spend looking after protected prisoners???? am just thinking of a recent case of a Prison Officer who was convicted of assault and sentenced to prison , he got NO suspended sentence and I would have thought that prison for him would be even more dangerous considering that he would now effectively be locked up with people that he had previously locked up himself , why was there no so called clause for him in his case??? surely prison would be highly dangerous for him too or are gardai extra special ????

mconigol · 28-05-2011 12:52AM

Jesus the stupidity of some people on this thread is unbelievable. Even for after hours.

Pathetic attempts to derail and change the context of the OP. You know who you are.

LizT · 28-05-2011 12:58AM

mconigol wrote: »

Jesus the stupidity of some people on this thread is unbelievable. Even for after hours.

Pathetic attempts to derail and change the context of the OP. You know who you are.

??

"you know who you are?" there's hundreds of posts in this thread.... How are we to know who you're talking about?

prinz · 28-05-2011 12:59AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Enlighten me then, for what other category of person who has the capability to be held fully responsible for their decisions, is there a provision which gets them off the hook because of risks inside prison? Name such a group of people and cite the law or custom which grants them leniency?

Granted it happened in the UK but....

He's got a string of previous convictions as long as your arm. But crime isn’t Nathan Cassidy’s only compulsion.
The serial burglar has an obsession with cleanliness – and that condition has helped keep him out of prison. The 20-year-old was allowed to walk free from court after he told a judge he would find jail ‘too traumatic’ because of his obsessive compulsive disorder. Cassidy smashed his way into an elderly couple’s home while they were sleeping and stole a handbag containing £105. The thief, who has 14 previous convictions for 29 crimes, committed the burglary while on a suspended sentence for robbery and handling stolen goods. However, he avoided jail by convincing Cambridge Crown Court he would not be able to cope with life behind bars because he is obsessed with cleanliness.

Mark McDonald, defending Cassidy, told the court his client was not a normal prisoner because of his problems with OCD. He said: ‘Because of psychological problems, including obsessive compulsive disorder in relation to cleanliness, custody would have a very traumatic effect on him – more so than it would on the average prisoner.’

http://www.whatsonningbo.com/news-3142-uk-serial-burglar-nathan-cassidy-spared-jail-because-he-can-t-bear-sight-of-dirt.html

sdanseo · 28-05-2011 01:04AM

It's not the fault of rank and file Gardaí that the justice system is totally borked and that most Judges in this country appear to live on Jupiter.

All threads like this do is give the 14,000 other perfectly law abiding Gardaí a bad name, make attitudes towards them even less cordial, and generally make their jobs harder in times of imminently dwindling numbers.

OP....have a think about that.

prinz · 28-05-2011 01:10AM

sdonn wrote: »

It's not the fault of rank and file Gardaí that the justice system is totally borked and that most Judges in this country appear to live on Jupiter..

+1, it's the barrister/solicitor's job to defend their client rightly or wrongly to get the best possible sentence. They did it in this case and the judge accepted it. It is not the case that the gardaí as a whole are exempted from serving prison time. On top of that it has to be remembered that the victim and his counsel did not push for a prison sentence to be imposed. he accepted the apology and compensation. It all sums up to a result were it looks like the judge was trying to keep the prison sentence to a minimum in line with all the circumstances of both the guilty party and the victim.

Contemplating Aristotle · 28-05-2011 01:10AM

To be above the law, one must be without the law. Within the law and you are within the confines of within, the acceptance of common laws in which all adhere to. These people will believe they are, but they cannot be above it, for to be above it would imply that they do not operate within that which they enforce.

heffo500 · 28-05-2011 01:16AM

Jesus You are giving out thanks like they were going out of fashion. Lucky the're free.

MagicSean · 28-05-2011 06:32AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

PErhaps you are unaware that there is a system in place for protecting people at risk of being attacked in prison?

You're arguing that it's ok for a paedophile to be attacked because he's done something bad, but not for a Gard because the gard has done something good to warrant the attack. My opinion is that they are identical crimes. Assault is still assault, and assault in prison should not EVER be tolerated. Assault on a paedophile is no better than assault on a Gard - both are extra judicial punishments which are not mandated anywhere in the law.

Enlighten me then, for what other category of person who has the capability to be held fully responsible for their decisions, is there a provision which gets them off the hook because of risks inside prison? Name such a group of people and cite the law or custom which grants them leniency?

Junkies, parents, people with poor upbringing, people who show remorse, people with no convictions. All get reduced sentences. The rule isn't because of the risk to them. It is because their custody would be more restrictive than a normal prisoners and so would be a more difficult punishment.

And for the record I'm not arguing it is ok for anyone to be attacked. I'm merely trying to explain the different motivations to you.

hatrickpatrick · 28-05-2011 07:13AM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Junkies, parents, people with poor upbringing, people who show remorse, people with no convictions. All get reduced sentences. The rule isn't because of the risk to them. It is because their custody would be more restrictive than a normal prisoners and so would be a more difficult punishment.

And for the record I'm not arguing it is ok for anyone to be attacked. I'm merely trying to explain the different motivations to you.

You're completely wrong I'm afraid. It's not because prison would be too hard for them. In each case it's more about the crime itself or other people involved:

Junkies - can't be held 100% responsible for their actions since they are addicted to a mind altering substance.

Parents - This has nothing to do with the parents themselves, it's about not depriving the kids of their parents.

People with poor upbringing - this is because they may have diminished responsibility on grounds of not fully understanding their crime or having learned it from childhood.

People who show remorse - this is because obviously somebody who shows remorse is less deserving of severe punishment than someone who doesn't. If the Gard had got off got showing remorse that would be one thing, but he didn't. He got off purely and only because he is a Gard. No other reason.

People with no convictions - this is merely to give someone the benefit of the doubt, usually just once or twice.

The key word in your post is "reduced". A reduced sentence. Not no sentence at all and simply walking free from court!

These groups aren't the same anyway as they are factors which affect the actual commission of the crime, not the punishment. It's called "diminished responsibility". That wasn't entered as a defense in this case so it's irrelevant.

MagicSean · 28-05-2011 07:30AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're completely wrong I'm afraid. It's not because prison would be too hard for them. In each case it's more about the crime itself or other people involved:

Junkies - can't be held 100% responsible for their actions since they are addicted to a mind altering substance.

Parents - This has nothing to do with the parents themselves, it's about not depriving the kids of their parents.

People with poor upbringing - this is because they may have diminished responsibility on grounds of not fully understanding their crime or having learned it from childhood.

People who show remorse - this is because obviously somebody who shows remorse is less deserving of severe punishment than someone who doesn't. If the Gard had got off got showing remorse that would be one thing, but he didn't. He got off purely and only because he is a Gard. No other reason.

People with no convictions - this is merely to give someone the benefit of the doubt, usually just once or twice.

The key word in your post is "reduced". A reduced sentence. Not no sentence at all and simply walking free from court!

These groups aren't the same anyway as they are factors which affect the actual commission of the crime, not the punishment. It's called "diminished responsibility". That wasn't entered as a defense in this case so it's irrelevant.

People who are sick can get suspended sentences as prison may be overly harsh on them as can people who agree to take part in various programs or educational courses.

And the Garda only had his sentence suspended, not reduced or removed. He still has 18 months hanging over him.

It's official: Gardai are above the law.

Comments