Guy:Incognito wrote: » Hes wasnt caught coming through the airport with 1/8th in his bag.
say what you see wrote: » The 20 year sentence was from 1996 not 2001.His original sentence was extremely harsh as well 28 years from importing hash:eek:
saywhatyousee wrote: » The 20 year sentence was from 1996 not 2001.His original sentence was extremely harsh as well 28 years from importing hash:eek:
johnners 2981 wrote: » No his sentence began in march 2001
realies wrote: » He was in custody in england from 96,That would be taken into account when reviewing his parole.
Liamario wrote: » Convicted of having a mobile phone in prison. Don't doubt for a second that the prison wardens were well aware he had a phone and had seen him use it as well. And they did nothing.
johnners 2981 wrote: » Maybe so but wasn't he supposed to serve an additional 5 years too for threatening to kill two prison officers, what happened that
johnners2981 wrote: » Maybe so but wasn't he supposed to serve an additional 5 years too for threatening to kill two prison officers, what happened that
stupidusername wrote: » WTF, when was he actually convicted? shouldn't it be 22 years and 6 months from that day? (minus time spent in custody before trial)
realies wrote: » I am guessing here but I suspect that it was a concurrent sentence which meant it was ran into his already serving sentence.
Ikky Poo2 wrote: » Depends on the terms of his realease, he may well still be subject to a period of probation.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » johnners2981 wrote: » http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0315/gilligan.html So out of a 28 year sentence he serves 11 years and gets another 6 months for being naughty. What is the point in these sentences when they are never carried out. They are usually handed a sentense and will get anything up to 30% off if they are good. Gives them a more incentive not to act the maggot inside.
johnners2981 wrote: » http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0315/gilligan.html So out of a 28 year sentence he serves 11 years and gets another 6 months for being naughty. What is the point in these sentences when they are never carried out.
lividduck wrote: » No, once he is released he is free and clear, personally I think he should have got life, that way if he ever was released it would be on licence and conditional. He is one evil bast*rd
realies wrote: » Has has been said earlies in this thread he was convicted of importing cannabis, A drug many many people would like to see legalised,why should he have gotten life ?
Patrick2010 wrote: » For the murder of a woman?
realies wrote: » He was found not guilty of murder or any anything else to do with the horrible murder of veronica gerren by the courts of this land, He was found guilty on Importing cannabis and initially got 28 years.
Patrick2010 wrote: » Obviously I know that, but everyone knows he was behind her murder, do you doubt it?
realies wrote: » Patrick2010 wrote: » Obviously I know that, but everyone knows he was behind her murder, do you doubt it? Its not up to anybody or everybody or what I think,Its up to the law of the land and the courts, Gilligan was tried and acquitted of the murder .You cant or imo should not have people in court on one charge and for that person to get sentenced on another.
saywhatyousee wrote: » True put there have been cases of people being caught with 10-15 millions worth of heroin and only getting 10 years
Liam Byrne wrote: » 11/28 = 39% SERVED That's 61% OFF, which is an absolute disgrace and would be a joke if it weren't letting thugs and low-likes back into out society.
RichieC wrote: » My mate says he's a bit of a joke in the prisons now, youngfellas shouting abuse at him ect..