Claire Nolan Sentenced to 6 years for running over old man nextdoor

Show Time · 13-03-2012 04:54PM

Can the family bring a civil case against this Nolan woman?

44leto · 13-03-2012 05:31PM

Show Time wrote: »

Can the family bring a civil case against this Nolan woman?

I would love to think so, but there would be nothing to be gained as Nolan is not wealthy and the legal expenses would be very high. The family would lose a fortune.

I can tell by this thread that not only the victims family feels justice was not served, but all of us. It really was a case of her getting away with murder. 6 years a quarter of that immediately reduced (good behaviour) so in effect she was sentenced to 54 months or 4.5 years.

Even with mitigating circumstances and allowing being Hi as an excuse (i absolutely don't agree) 12 to 15 years to me would have been generously fair.

123balltv · 13-03-2012 05:36PM

High on drugs and drink yet she was able to think kind of
intelligibly to burn the car, cover her tracks this no was no typical brain dead
junkie she should of got more time

Kristopherus · 13-03-2012 05:43PM

There should be a 1 before the 6 and she should serve every last second of it.

benway · 13-03-2012 06:09PM

123balltv wrote: »

High on drugs and drink yet she was able to think kind of
intelligibly to burn the car, cover her tracks this no was no typical brain dead
junkie she should of got more time

To be fair, she apparently drove the car 300 yards then burned it out. Hardly Mensa material.

44leto wrote: »

allowing being Hi as an excuse (i absolutely don't agree)

It's not an excuse. Voluntary intoxication isn't recognised by law as a defence, and won't usually be taken in mitigation - in one rape case it was an aggravating factor.

The court heard that Ms Nolan had been involved in a row with the dead man's son, Francis Duffy, who had been seen trying to break into her car.

After an altercation, she drove her car into his driveway at Wellview Grove in Blanchardstown and struck his father, who was a retired taxi driver.

The trial heard Ms Nolan was visiting the house next door and had been drinking and taking cocaine and sleeping tablets.

She told gardaí she had 'lost it; when she discovered Francis Duffy had been trying to break into her car.

She said she did not mean to kill anyone and had driven through the garden gates to frighten Francis Duffy but had hit his father instead.

Now, I remember a case not so long ago when someone chased down an attempted thief with his car and had people calling him a hero for it. Just sayin'.

Seachmall · 13-03-2012 06:11PM

benway wrote: »

Now, I remember a case not so long ago when someone chased down an attempted thief with his car and had people calling him a hero for it. Just sayin'.

You do see a distinction between the two cases, right?

benway · 13-03-2012 06:23PM

Yeah, one involved a property developer and people were bending over backwards to defend him, the other involves a "scumbag junkie b!tch", and people are looking to bring back 'anging.

After all, anyone who hits someone else with a car must know there's a substantial risk of killing them.

But nah, I'm not seriously trying to compare them, it's just that I think there's a certain irony here - the known facts of the case could just as easily lend themselves to the interpretation of a tragic accident after someone saw their property being threatened. Not that I think it's the case, but it's not as straightforward as people like, say, you, made it out to be.

Seachmall wrote: »

Her intention was to kill, not injure, him. In this case the extreme violence of her actions betrays her intention. She only got manslaughter because she killed the wrong person.

You don't know that. It's pure supposition, to be kind. Unless you have some special insight into this case that I don't know about?

Seems to me that it's just as likely that she did only intend to frighten the kid, but was unable to maintain sufficient control over the car. Not that she wouldn't still deserve a substantial prison sentence - in or around 6-8 years would seem about right.

As for 8 years not being a long sentence, what I wouldn't give to have the last 8 years of my life back. Have a quick think about everything that's happened to you in that time, then come back to me.

Venom · 13-03-2012 06:32PM

benway wrote: »

Yeah, one involved a property developer and people were bending over backwards to defend him, the other involves a "scumbag junkie b!tch", and people are looking to bring back 'anging.

After all, anyone who hits someone else with a car must know there's a substantial risk of killing them.

But nah, I'm not seriously trying to compare them, it's just that I think there's a certain irony here - the known facts of the case could just as easily lend themselves to the interpretation of a tragic accident after someone saw their property being threatened. Not that I think it's the case, but it's not as straightforward as people like, say, you, made it out to be.

You don't know that. It's pure supposition, to be kind. Unless you have some special insight into this case that I don't know about?

Seems to me that it's just as likely that she did only intend to frighten the kid, but was unable to maintain sufficient control over the car. Not that she wouldn't still deserve a substantial prison sentence - in or around 6-8 years would seem about right.

As for 8 years not being a long sentence, what I wouldn't give to have the last 8 years of my life back. Have a quick think about everything that's happened to you in that time, then come back to me.

:rolleyes:

Seachmall · 13-03-2012 06:34PM

benway wrote: »

Yeah, one involved a property developer and people were bending over backwards to defend him, the other involves a "scumbag junkie b!tch", and people are looking to bring back 'anging.

After all, anyone who hits someone else with a car must know there's a substantial risk of killing them.

But nah, I'm not seriously trying to compare them, it's just that I think there's a certain irony here - the known facts of the case could just as easily lend themselves to the interpretation of a tragic accident after someone saw their property being threatened. Not that I think it's the case, but it's not as straightforward as people like, say, you, made it out to be.

But you're aware of the general consensus on how the two cases differ? And how that might influence someone's opinion of why one should be treated more severely than the other?

Seems to me that it's just as likely that she did only intend to frighten the kid, but was unable to maintain sufficient control over the car. Not that she wouldn't still deserve a substantial prison sentence - in or around 6-8 years would seem about right.

"The jury was told that in considering the murder charge, it was irrelevant whether or not the person killed was the person at whom the intent to kill or seriously injure was directed." - Link above

Whoever advised the jury, presumably the judge, obviously felt she intended to do more than frighten them.

And as said, the actions clearly betray her intent.

As for 8 years not being a long sentence, what I wouldn't give to have the last 8 years of my life back. Have a quick think about everything that's happened to you in that time, then come back to me.

Everything that has happened to me didn't involve me killing somebody, so it's not really relevant.

benway · 13-03-2012 06:41PM

Seachmall wrote: »

The jury was told that in considering the murder charge, it was irrelevant whether or not the person killed was the person at whom the intent to kill or seriously injure was directed." - Link above

That's just a basic statement of the law, it's not meant to influence the verdict either way - the judges directions are solely for the instruction of the jury on what the law is, their function is to determine guilt or innocence.

It's certain that the jury, having heard all the evidence, weren't satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she did actually intend to kill anyone, which is why they came back with a verdict of manslaughter.

Not excusing her, by any stretch of the imagination, but this doesn't seem like a particularly lenient sentence in the circumstances, although I'd need much more information to say either way.

I don't see how anyone can form a strong opinion on it based on the article linked in the OP, that's for certain.

previous user · 13-03-2012 06:51PM

ronan45 wrote: »

She was a true Gurrier this one. Had a list as long as your arm for previous offences too. Nasty bit of work

Really? I thought I heard she had been done for drugs twice before or was there more, putting that aside for a second, I just live down the road and it's shocking that something like this can happen.

44leto · 13-03-2012 07:13PM

benway wrote: »

To be fair, she apparently drove the car 300 yards then burned it out. Hardly Mensa material.

But it shows a level of intelligence not Mensa but not out of her head,

It's not an excuse. Voluntary intoxication isn't recognised by law as a defence, and won't usually be taken in mitigation - in one rape case it was an aggravating factor.

But it seemed to be a factor in this case, it was mentioned a lot in the media that on her own admission "she was out of her head". I know it is not taken into consideration and rightly so,

Now, I remember a case not so long ago when someone chased down an attempted thief with his car and had people calling him a hero for it. Just sayin'.

You make a good and uncomfortable point, I would have been one applauding the developers action. But you can only interpret each action with the information given, if I remember correctly the developer was trying to stop the scumbag, so he could be apprehended. But she was clearly trying to seriously hurt someone. Even if her intentions were not murderous they were definitely grievous, if she did succeed in only injuring the man, she probably would have got a little less of a sentence then killing him. Probably 2 to 4 years.

Seachmall · 13-03-2012 09:07PM

benway wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can form a strong opinion on it based on the article linked in the OP, that's for certain.

People, including me, are basing their opinions on what's reported and what's believed to be true. This is AH, not a court room.

Context is everything.

murphm45 · 13-03-2012 09:28PM

benway wrote: »

8 years isn't lengthy now?

The whole point of manslaughter is that it's less morally culpable than murder, that the person didn't intend to kill, even if they acted recklessly. So no, there doesn't need to be mandatory life for manslaughter.

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

I'm gonna love this thread, I'm sure.

This remark is rubbish, and I'm say you realise that yourself. Both commited parites crimes and both deserve to be punished but the severity of the punishment has to reflect the severity of the crime.

What the judical system has, in effect, done is value a human life at €1.6m!! i'm sure there's a witty way i could tie this in with what i'd do if i won the lotto but my lack of tact will probably get me banned so i'll leave to your own imagination to come up with something good!

For Forks Sake · 13-03-2012 10:39PM

previous user wrote: »

Really? I thought I heard she had been done for drugs twice before or was there more, putting that aside for a second, I just live down the road and it's shocking that something like this can happen.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0313/1224313201209.html

Last week the court heard Nolan has 15 previous convictions. She received a three-year suspended sentence in the Circuit Court for possession of cocaine for sale and supply on January 25th, 2008 – the day before the killing.

nlgbbbblth · 13-03-2012 11:06PM

So were there charges brought against the son for the attempted break in?

jluv · 13-03-2012 11:06PM

benway wrote: »

8 years isn't lengthy now?

The whole point of manslaughter is that it's less morally culpable than murder, that the person didn't intend to kill, even if they acted recklessly. So no, there doesn't need to be mandatory life for manslaughter.

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

I'm gonna love this thread, I'm sure.

I read the quote before reading the posters name and knew it was you!:)

Dave147 · 14-03-2012 04:50AM

benway wrote: »

8 years isn't lengthy now?

The whole point of manslaughter is that it's less morally culpable than murder, that the person didn't intend to kill, even if they acted recklessly. So no, there doesn't need to be mandatory life for manslaughter.

So it's let the "junkie scumbag b!tch" rot for life, but give the oootraprenooor a free pass for pretty much anything, if AH is anything to go by?

I'm gonna love this thread, I'm sure.

What are you even on about? She ****ing crushed him with her ****ing car, junkie or not. Judge said drink and drugs were not an excuse and then he gives her a 6 year sentence, country is a ****ing disgrace where scum like that get a slap on the wrist. 6 years (I'm aware the sentence is 8, 2 suspended plus 'good behaviour' she'll do less) is not a lengthy sentence for that crime. People have gotten 6 years for bad assaults and armed robbery, time for some zero tolerance, if the rest of us can go around without accidentally killing each other I don't see why it's any different for these scuts.

Attitude of some people make me sick, it actually seems like you're defending her. Oh an by the way, I'd gladly let that tramp rot for the rest of her worthless life.

/rant.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-03-2012 09:47AM

black francis wrote: »

Serious question.

Why, in any media reporting of the incident, is Claire Nolan referred to as 'Mother of one, Claire Nolan'?

You never hear of a man being convicted of a serious crime being called 'Father of two Black Francis'.

I find it strange.

It happens too , especially with victims

TBH I don't see teh relevance of no of kids to anything

AH answer, how would they know how many kids a scumbag has fathered ??

Capt'n Midnight · 14-03-2012 09:58AM

Anfield Road wrote: »

From breakingnews.ie:

Last week, the court heard Claire Nolan has 15 previous convictions including a three-year suspended sentence in the Circuit Court for possession of cocaine for sale and supply committed on January 25, 2008 - the day prior to this incident.

My take on suspended sentences during their period (and for crimes commuted while on bail) is that this term cannot be concurrent with any other sentence.

At present my impression is there is no substantial incentive to behave if it's believed that it doesn't count as extra time.

She is only getting 3 years for the killing unless the judge has ruled that the crime wasn't a violation of the conditions.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/types_of_sentences.html

Suspended sentences

A suspended sentence involves the judge imposing a prison sentence but suspending it on certain conditions. This means that you do not go to prison if you do not break the conditions. A suspended sentence contains 3 elements:

The term of imprisonment (for example, 4 years)
The conditions on which it is suspended (for example, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour or to undergo certain treatment)
The period for which the sentence is suspended

If you break a condition during the period for which the sentence is suspended, you will have to serve the term of imprisonment originally imposed.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-03-2012 10:01AM

dubtom wrote: »

Manslaughter is when you don't intend to kill, innocent people commit manslaughter everyday with no malice,no intent,purely accidental, should they have to suffer your lenghty prison sentences.

if it's purely accidental then it's not manslaughter.

Stuff like corporate manslaughter applies where someone has clearly failed in their duty to care. It's not for industrial accidents , it's for easily preventable industrial deathtraps.

TBH it might be worth considering the French system of launching a manslaughter investigation whenever there is a road traffic fatality.

murphm45 · 14-03-2012 05:31PM

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

So were there charges brought against the son for the attempted break in?

She probably didn't report it! In fact this could be a lesson for all those who might consider taking the law into their own hand!!

Stiffler2 · 14-03-2012 05:53PM

black francis wrote: »

Serious question.

Why, in any media reporting of the incident, is Claire Nolan referred to as 'Mother of one, Claire Nolan'?

You never hear of a man being convicted of a serious crime being called 'Father of two Black Francis'.

I find it strange.

Who knows why that's reported. Probably trying to get sympathy.
Oh Look, The mother of 1 has a child, best not to lock her up.

benway · 14-03-2012 06:15PM

Seachmall wrote: »

People, including me, are basing their opinions on what's reported and what's believed to be true. This is AH, not a court room.

Context is everything.

Which is fine, but people are putting forward some very strong opinions based on pretty much no information, drawing conclusions and comparisons that can in no way be justified. To be honest, I wouldn't give much for what's believed to be true around here.

jluv wrote: »

I read the quote before reading the posters name and knew it was you!:)

I'm in ur AH, spoilin' ur "I hate scumbags" threads.

murphm45 wrote: »

This remark is rubbish....

What the judical system has, in effect, done is value a human life at €1.6m!!

Irony.

Explain to me how that last bit works, please?

Dave147 wrote: »

time for some zero tolerance

Nice rant, But I'm willing to hazard a guess that you don't know what "zero tolerance" actually entails?

murphm45 · 14-03-2012 06:43PM

benway wrote: »

Irony.

Explain to me how that last bit works, please?

Don't qiute see the irony but i'll just chalk that one up to my own stupidity.

In realtion to my comment it's obviosly my mathematical mind at work but if two actions have the same reaction then the actions must be equivalent.

So, if
- "killing" someone = 6 years and ;
- "stealing" €1.6m = 6 years
then surely
killing somone equivalent to steaing 1.6m
and, to me at least, killing someone is the same as stealing their life
again apply "maths" gives:
stealing someones life equivalent to stealing 1.6m
finally "tidying up" gives
life equivalent to €1.6m

Like i said obviously my mathematical mind at work but the judical obviously condiders them equivalent.

Dave147 · 14-03-2012 06:47PM

benway wrote: »

Nice rant, But I'm willing to hazard a guess that you don't know what "zero tolerance" actually entails?

It's a turn of phrase. I'm willing to hazard a guess that you've not had much experience with scumbags.

token101 · 14-03-2012 07:06PM

The justice system in this country is class! 6 years for deliberately driving a car into a person? Just because she was coked out of her mind and hit the wrong person, it's manslaughter? Guy a few weeks ago gets three years for throwing a baby around a room almost murdering the child. Guy yesterday gets 6 years for raping his daughter for years.

And that garlic 'smuggler'? He gets 6 years for defrauding the state out of €1.6 million. Fair enough if you want to get tough on white collar crime, but what about the guys who deliberately misled those Cowen and Lenihan as to the extents of the losses in the banks? Isn't that fraud too? Do tough sentencing laws only apply to the working/middle class now? Because its seems scum and the upper class get off scot free a lot of the time.

benway · 14-03-2012 07:20PM

Dave147 wrote: »

It's a turn of phrase. I'm willing to hazard a guess that you've not had much experience with scumbags.

In my line of work, I'd say that I have more experience with "scumbags" than the rest of ye put together. Nice try, though.

Zero tolerance is a policing strategy, that involves picking up even the most minor offences - no offence, no matter how trivial, should be ignored. Crossing the street in the wrong place, littering, tail-light out, you name it. The theory is that cracking down on the little crimes will reduce the more serious ones - I don't think it's been conclusively shown to work, although it is true that New York saw a dramatic reduction in serious crime when Bill Bratten implemented it, arguably crime was already on a downward slope before then, for other reasons. Anyway, moral of this story is be careful what you wish for.

murphm45 wrote: »

So, if
- "killing" someone = 6 years and ;
- "stealing" €1.6m = 6 years
then surely
killing somone equivalent to steaing 1.6m
and, to me at least, killing someone is the same as stealing their life
again apply "maths" gives:
stealing someones life equivalent to stealing 1.6m
finally "tidying up" gives
life equivalent to €1.6m

The court also imprisoned someone for life for killing someone a few weeks back:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0228/1224312481669.html

So:

"Killing" someone = six years and;
"Killing" someone = life imprisonment;

ergo

six years = life imprisonment

QED, amirite?

murphm45 · 14-03-2012 08:07PM

benway wrote: »

The court also imprisoned someone for life for killing someone a few weeks back:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0228/1224312481669.html

So:

"Killing" someone = six years and;
"Killing" someone = life imprisonment;

ergo

six years = life imprisonment

QED, amirite?

The reaosn i put killing in quotes was due to the manslaughter element. The case you linked to is murder (which is killing without the quotes). Personnally in this case I don't think it was but the law does and that's what matters. To be fair by though my interpretation is influenced by the media and what actually happened and what's reported will obviously be to completely different things (bias etc).

Also, bit of a sidebar (sorry no pun intended) in the case you show here the accused got a life sentence, not life imprisonment. They should be the same but there not. if memory serves there was some survey showing most got out in 10 - 15 years.

benway · 14-03-2012 08:31PM

murphm45 wrote: »

if memory serves there was some survey showing most got out in 10 - 15 years.

13 years, I think. The Parole Board assesses them periodically and sends a report to the Minister, who authorises the release. Some are in for far longer, I don't think many politicians are going to sign off on releasing someone who's likely to reoffend - not for any principled reasons, but because of the damage it could do their careers.

Although, while I'm at it, you don't often hear of a lifer getting out and committing another serious crime, do you?

Point is, it's not realistic to compare sentences - there's an understandable tendency to look at the stories and just take the outline of the offence and the sentence and not go much further - "how much did he get" syndrome?

That's completely misleading, and might have something to do with why a lot of people seem to think that the system is soft - although imho the press in this country tend to spin crime stories in that direction anyway.

People forget that the judge sits through several days, up to several weeks, of evidence, takes in the accuseds', the victims' (or heard a victim impact statement) and the witnesses' demeanour, and weighs it all up before coming to a decision. 50 words in the paper doesn't even begin to cover it.

Despite what you might be led to believe, from what I've seen, there aren't many bleeding heart liberals on the Central Criminal Court bench.

Claire Nolan Sentenced to 6 years for running over old man nextdoor

Comments