Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Justice wins out, eventually!

2

Comments

  • #32
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,780 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    She refused to accept it and had made it known to the original sentencing court that she would not accept it.
    The original sentencing judge ignored her views and chose to let the bollix buy his way to freedom anyway!

    Hopefully they let her have both. An increased sentence for him and the money :D


  • #33
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    I know what that sounds like!


    It seemed that way to me too


  • #34
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    wprathead wrote: »
    Basically a "I may have done X, but I never did A,B,C,D,E,F,G etc." argument..

    More like, have any of the others come forward!:mad:


  • #35
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    I hope the appointment of this judge is reviewed.

    Why was the issue of compensation considered a mitigating factor in this case?
    The sentence was criticised by a number of organisations at the time, including the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, which called it “unusual”.
    It certainly seemed irregular. I wonder is there more to it?


    It seems to be the case that the only reason he denied the charge at all was so he could submit a defense of involuntary intoxication.
    The 52-year-old claimed he was overcome by an “irresistible urge” due to the combination of alcohol, cholesterol medicine and cough syrup — but the jury rejected his claim.
    That was an actual defense folks.

    They seemed to be saying that if that had not been the case he might have plead guilty. Can someone explain? Or is that simply to make him look better for not pleading guilty and showing contrition?

    I would also stress the need for appropriate sentencing rather than rabble raising and I hope he receives counseling appropriate for sex offenders and substance abuse.

    Sentencing should be dependent on the law, the severity of the crime and it's impact on the victim, the amount of remorse shown, a potential for rehabilitation and any potential danger to society.

    Also no one could deny that this case was affected by his being a millionaire and the fact that it was rectified so quickly in comparison to the usual timescale of the justice system has got to be to do with the media and public outcry. The family were originally told to hope for an appeal date in 2015.

    Whether you are a millionaire or a poor man you should be fairly treated and if necessary punished.

    Is anything going to happen about Judge Hogan?


  • #36
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Is anything going to happen about Judge Hogan?
    Nope.
    Despite only last week having been accused by a High Court Judge of "of highly inappropriate interference in a family law case".


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    poundapunnet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭poundapunnet


    ShagNastii wrote: »
    It's that line you keep hearing in reports.

    "He alleged that he was overcome with an urge probably brought on by a mixture of drink, cholesterol medication and cough syrup".

    What a cop out from an utter scumbag.

    For fuck's sake. Don't you hate when that happens :rolleyes:


  • #38
    cletus van damme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 960 ✭✭✭cletus van damme


    Candie wrote: »
    I think if it onus was on the victim, the trauma of reliving the situation again would be enough to discourage a fair proportion. It's best the DPP does it on behalf of society, not just the victim, anyway.

    in this case , i agree
    but my point related to all cases.


  • #39
    Benbulnen64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Benbulnen64


    Humphrey

    It's not a case of the judge ignoring the complainant's views. and her outline of her adverse experience. The judge would have been privy to her victim impact statement. However, in a victim impact statement she does not get to decide ( or even recommend upon) this man's sentence. Only the judge decides on that.

    It is called the rule of law. The legislature sets down the maximum sentence for particular crimes. The judge looks to the max, s/he then places the offending on a scale of seriousness in relation to the most serious of that type of crime, s/he looks to the deterrence principle, considers any remorse expressed by the defendant and other personal circs. The judge then decides what an appropriate sentence is in the circumstances.

    It is always open to the DPP to appeal sentence if there has been a demonstrable error of law on the Judge's part and/or the sentence imposed is either manifestly excessive or lenient in the circumstances.


  • #40
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Benbulnen64 wrote: »
    Humphrey

    It's not a case of the judge ignoring the complainant's views. and her outline of her adverse experience. The judge would have been privy to her victim impact statement. However, in a victim impact statement she does not get to decide ( or even recommend upon) this man's sentence. Only the judge decides on that.

    It is called the rule of law. The legislature sets down the maximum sentence for particular crimes. The judge looks to the max, s/he then places the offending on a scale of seriousness in relation to the most serious of that type of crime, s/he looks to the deterrence principle, considers any remorse expressed by the defendant and other personal circs. The judge then decides what an appropriate sentence is in the circumstances. In this case he chose , for reasons known only to himself to ignore all of the above![/COLOR]
    It is always open to the DPP to appeal sentence if there has been a demonstrable error of law on the Judge's part and/or the sentence imposed is either manifestly excessive or lenient in the circumstances.

    I never said the victim could or should decide on the convicted attackers sentence.
    I pointed to matter of fact that the victim had made it clear to the court previous to sentencing that she was not interested in receiving compensation from her attacker, a view that the Judge callously chose to ignore when perversely deciding to award her compensation so that he could suspend five and a half years her attackers sentence.
    I note the DPP made the submission in the CCC that the Judge failed to take into account the effect of the attack on the victim, and it is fair to extrapolate from the decision of the court that they agreed.
    As for the rule of law , you would do better to explain that concept to Judge Hogan, according to Mr Justice Henry Abbot, Hogan needs some guidance in that regard!


  • #41
    Eight Ball
    Closed Accounts Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Eight Ball


    The original judge should be up on charges also.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Benbulnen64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Benbulnen64


    Humphrey

    I don't think it's accurate to state that the judge ordered the fine/compo so that he COULD suspend part of the prison term imposed. It is ALWAYS open to a judge to suspend either the whole or part of the term of imprisonment imposed depending on the length of sentence imposed, his view of the seriousness of the offending and the circumstances involved, personal circs of offender, attempts by offender at rehabilitation, etc.

    Eight ball, it us simply illogical to suggest that the judge should be up on charges when he was merely exercising his judicial function. The court of appeal has disagreed with him and overruled his decision. That is how the checks and balances of our criminal justice system operates.


  • #43
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Benbulnen64 wrote: »
    Humphrey

    I don't think it's accurate to state that the judge ordered the fine/compo so that he COULD suspend part of the prison term imposed. It is ALWAYS open to a judge to suspend either the whole or part of the term of imprisonment imposed depending on the length of sentence imposed, his view of the seriousness of the offending and the circumstances involved, personal circs of offender, attempts by offender at rehabilitation, etc.
    Really? Judge Hogan stated in his sentencing that the compensation was a mitigating factor which influenced his decision.
    And the appeal court have already ruled that he failed to take into account the seriousness of the offence and the effect on the victim.
    I cannot for the life of me see why you appear determined to defend the indefensible.
    It should also be noted that this same Judge attempted to improperly influence a High Court family case according to the Judge hearing that case, seems Hogan has a penchant for looking out for his friends!


  • #44
    Benbulnen64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Benbulnen64


    Humphrey

    I think we might be talking at cross purposes.. What I was referring to is the judge's power to suspend part of the term or the whole term irrespective of the 75K.


    I have already acknowledged that the superior court overruled the judge so your raising that point again is redundant.

    You are clouding the issue by bringing in the family court matter. To suggest that the judge is looking after his "friends" troubles me; unless you know for a fact
    ( not hearsay mind) that the offender here and the judge were friends, it is an outrageous allegation to make on your part.

    I know neither the judge nor the offender so I am not, as you spuriously suggest, trying to defend the indefensible. I'm simply setting out what the legal position is when it comes to the imposing of a non custodial term such as a suspended term.


  • #45
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Benbulnen64 wrote: »
    Humphrey

    I'm simply setting out what the legal position is when it comes to the imposing of a non custodial term such as a suspended term.

    And I am simply setting out that in the case of a rich man this judge did not follow the proper legal position, nor did he follow the correct legal position when he accosted a High Court judge who has since claimed that he made "improper interference" (High Court Judge Henry Abbots words) in a family law case being heard in the High Court.


  • #46
    Benbulnen64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Benbulnen64


    Again you bring in the blind of the family court, totally irrelevant to this matter, which shows your points in respect to this matter cannot be compellingly made.

    I do not believe that the offender here was treated differently because he's rich. He was a first offender at age 50 and that, as well as the seriousness of the offence, was taken into account. Obviously seriousness of offence in appeal court's view was not given primacy by the judge at first instance, hence the successful appeal.

    Ok if you're someone who's not too well off yourself, but it is still not right for you to discriminate against this man and bear him more ill will merely because he is rich.


  • #47
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #48
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Benbulnen64 wrote: »
    Again you bring in the blind of the family court, totally irrelevant to this matter, which shows your points in respect to this matter cannot be compellingly made.

    I do not believe that the offender here was treated differently because he's rich. He was a first offender at age 50 and that, as well as the seriousness of the offence, was taken into account. Obviously seriousness of offence in appeal court's view was not given primacy by the judge at first instance, hence the successful appeal.

    Ok if you're someone who's not too well off yourself, but it is still not right for you to discriminate against this man and bear him more ill will merely because he is rich.

    The bolded part is an absolute untruth. The judge abjectly failed to take into consideration either the gravity of the offence, or the effect on the victim, he further failed to take into account the absolute lack of remorse by the convicted who at all times fought the case and who initially lied to the Gardai.
    The fact that this judge has been found to have made improper interference in another case is highly relevant, to argue otherwise is facile.


  • #49
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If he skips he will be the subject of an arrest warrant and eventual extradition.
    If the judge had done his job properly the sentence would not have needed reviewing at all.


  • #50
    Benbulnen64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Benbulnen64


    Humphrey

    Re flight risk. It is likely that following success of his appeal that the man's passport has already been seized by Gardai.

    When you say he at all times fought the case, once again you are not quite correct. He let the complainant's statement in...

    When you make commentary on legal matters, you do not seem to get it that a LITTLE knowledge does NOT go a long way!


  • #51
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Benbulnen64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Benbulnen64


    FS

    Can you provide me with an authority for that proposition?


  • #53
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #54
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Benbulnen64 wrote: »
    Humphrey

    When you say he at all times fought the case, once again you are not quite correct. He let the complainant's statement in...
    QUOTE]

    Firstly she is not the complainant she is the victim! That has been clearly established. Referring to her as the complainant is a trite attempt to minimise what happened to her and make it appear as though it has yet to be decided if she is telling the truth, a strategy I personally find disgusting!
    Secondly, he fought the case at all times, that is a matter of fact and record.
    Thirdly, he didn't "let" the victims statement in, the accused does not get to decide such matters, the victims statement was always going to admissible since it formed the basis of the original complaint and the subsequent investigation.


  • #55
    Benbulnen64
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Benbulnen64


    Humphrey. The correct legal term is the complainant. Again you are wrong footed, the defence can decide whether to let the statement in or to challenge its contents and the veracity thereof...

    It's called the best evidence rule.

    FS

    That is not an authority, You cannot be serious that you have never heard of conditions being imposed in respect of those like this man where their passport is obliged to be handed in?!


  • #56
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Benbulnen64 wrote: »
    Humphrey. The correct legal term is the complainant. Again you are wrong footed, the defence can decide whether to let the statement in or to challenge its contents and the veracity thereof...

    It's called the best evidence rule.

    FS

    That is not an authority, You cannot be serious that you have never heard of conditions being imposed in respect of those like this man where their passport is obliged to be handed in?!

    The only way that the defence could avoid her statement being admissible was to require her to testify, the prejudicial value of her testimony would clearly have been such as to make it more beneficial for the defence to simply allow her statement to be entered without questioning it.
    He did her no favours.
    And the correct term after a verdict has been reached is the victim and the convicted!


  • #57
    Birneybau
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,420 ✭✭✭✭Birneybau


    Humphrey.

    That is all.


  • #58
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Birneybau wrote: »
    Humphrey.

    That is all.
    :confused:


  • #59
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #60
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Unlikely.
    If he was going to flee why did he turn up yesterday?
    Also there are very few non extradition states left.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Birneybau
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,420 ✭✭✭✭Birneybau


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    :confused:

    Ah, it just looked like a private conversation, just felt left out of it.


Advertisement