nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

200hrs community service for 1/5 of a gram of Pot

drunkmonkey

I'd expect this in Saudi Arabia but Nass you got to be kidding me..

A mother of one was today ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service after she was convicted of having €10 worth of cannabis.

Naas District Court heard the defendant was a very good parent who was embarrassed to be in court.

Judge Desmond Zaidan said he will apply the Probation Act if the defendant successfully completes 200 hours of community service.

http://www.kildarenow.com/news/single-mum-27-caught-with-e10-of-cannabis/56545

What a complete waste of Court, Garda, Judges, Community workers time not to mention the emotional strain on the poor girl and her family. Now expected to leave her kid for 200hrs.
This case is an embarresment to the Gardaì and our entire legal system.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ComfortKid

A gram is 20 quid in most places, enough for about 3 joints which would about the same effect as 3 pints. Mellow for an hour or 2 at most.

bodice ripper

Tis actually about three fiddy. Well played

Peist2007

Tzetze wrote: »

€10, according to the authorities. They ought to knnow, right?

(I'd say about three fiddy.)

Possibly even less than a tenner. Completely draconian and ridiculous. Especially when you see the clear moves being made towards decriminalisation. Judge sounds like he needs to be told a few things.

Tzetze

Peist2007 wrote: »

200 hours for one fifth of a gram of pot is an extremely stupid sentence. Do you know how much one fifth a gram of pot is worth?

€10, according to the authorities. They ought to knnow, right?

(I'd say about three fiddy.)

DamagedTrax

Red Kev wrote: »

Zaidan is one of the more erratic and inconsistent judges in the country, he seems to thrive on publicity for bizarre sentencing.

Desmond needs investigating quickly. He once jailed a guy for kissing his girlfriend as she was leaving by the back of the court room. He left him in cells overnight until he apologised to the court.

Now he wasnt getting stuck into her or anything, just kissing her goodbye quickly.

Desmond Zaidan is not of the correct state of mind to make sound and fair judgements IMO.

He has jailed people for incidents that are not criminal offences under Irish statute

smash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't, because I'd be stupid enough to drink in the street in the first place even though I knew it was illegal.

I wouldn't risk it, knowing the possible consequences. The woman in the OP clearly felt differently, and she got caught for it.

Seems a bit obvious surely?

200 hours has never been a possible consequence of having €10 worth of pot, until now.

It's also not a possible consequence of having an open can of beer on the street so I seriously doubt you'd say to yourself "better not go outside with this can in case I get 200 hours..."

Bob24

Red Kev wrote: »

Of course we don't know if she has previous convistions, but usually that would be mentioned in the article so, we can provisionally take it that she has no previous convictions until we know otherwise

I would dispute this. Do you read "KildareNow" regularly? Do you know who is writing for it and if they are a reputable source? Do you have any example of how they usually report previous convictions or not?

I wouldn't make any assumption either way.

Peist2007

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's actually stupid, is getting caught with drugs.

What's stupid about the sentence? It's 200 hours community service, not a custodial sentence, she was back with her child an hour later, and is unlikely to want to appear in the dock again.

200 hours for one fifth of a gram of pot is an extremely stupid sentence. Do you know how much one fifth a gram of pot is worth?

harry Bailey esq

I didnt read the link, but I reckon there's more to this.My own theory would be that they raided her gaf expecting to find a lot more,probably wrecking the poor womans house in the process,but found what amounts to less than enough for a spliff,so they charged her on it to justify the raid and avoid compensating for the damage they caused to doors/windows etc.Its quite a common practice, just rarely makes the papers.I've been caught with more than that on the street and the worst thing that would happen would be confiscation. On occasion, I've even had it had it handed back to me.
Also the local dope merchants in naas must be raking it in if the locals are paying 50 quid a poxy gram.

Red Kev

I think the issue here is the erratic sentencing that we constantly see in court cases. You see some fella up on his 100th + conviction being let off with a suspended sentence for assault or theft or driving without a licence, tax, insurance etc.

Then you see this woman being given 200 hours for what is a relatively trivial offence. Yes, I know she broke a law, but this is a joke (the fact she is a 'good mother' should have nothing to do with it'.

The fella with over 100 convictions doesn't get community service because they don't give a shlt and just don't turn up; the person in charge of them won't write them down as absent because they are afraid of them.

Of course we don't know if she has previous convistions, but usually that would be mentioned in the article so, we can provisionally take it that she has no previous convictions until we know otherwise.

I'm all in favour of community service and rehabilitation work, but 20 hours would nearly be excessive in this case.

Zaidan is one of the more erratic and inconsistent judges in the country, he seems to thrive on publicity for bizarre sentencing.

I think this is what's annoying people, the fact that he came down so hard on her yet bigger, serial offenders just walk out the door.

Samaris

You wouldn't feel that 200hrs was a bit harsh for a slap-on-the-wrist job though?

ComfortKid

Ah she must of had a load of previous convictions or something. I got caught with a half oz of high quality buds before and only got fined 200e.

Most community service orders handed out are around 140 hours and thats for serious crimes and repeat offenders. Theres more to this story I guarantee it.

One eyed Jack

smash wrote: »

It's illegal to drink on the streets. If you were caught with an open can of Heineken and sentenced to 200 hours community service would you feel the same?

Of course I wouldn't, because I'd be stupid enough to drink in the street in the first place even though I knew it was illegal.

I wouldn't risk it, knowing the possible consequences. The woman in the OP clearly felt differently, and she got caught for it.

Seems a bit obvious surely?

smash

ceannair06 wrote: »

To quote Lethal Weapon 3 "cos beer's legal and grass aint".

The act is still illegal. That's why I presented the scenario.

Samaris

crazygeryy wrote: »

she ll be very slow to do it again.
job done.
and her poor children and family my arse,does she think of the children when shes stoned off her knockers?

I don't know, what does anyone think of the children after a couple of glasses of sherry?

Seriously, one joint/E10s worth isn't actually that much. It's probably the equivalent of a glass or two.

Bob24

It's OK to quote the judge's name in the article so that everyone can blame him. But on the other end there is no way to quote the name of the person who got sentenced or give any details about her background or potential previous convictions which might have lead to that decision (just writing "she was not previously known of the police and had not received any previous conviction" would have been easy and cleared up any potential questioning).

We might not be told everything about this.

ceannair06

smash wrote: »

It's illegal to drink on the streets. If you were caught with an open can of Heineken and sentenced to 200 hours community service would you feel the same?

To quote Lethal Weapon 3 "cos beer's legal and grass aint".

smash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's actually stupid, is getting caught with drugs.

What's stupid about the sentence? It's 200 hours community service, not a custodial sentence, she was back with her child an hour later, and is unlikely to want to appear in the dock again.

It's illegal to drink on the streets. If you were caught with an open can of Heineken and sentenced to 200 hours community service would you feel the same?

awec

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don't. Everyone can see that risking breaking the law is a bad idea when you're a parent who is responsible for a child.

Give over.

She was caught with a bit of weed, not a needle hanging out of her arm.

One eyed Jack

asherbassad wrote: »

Her responsibilities as a parent.

Do you know something about her parenting skills that the rest of us don't?

No, I don't. Everyone can see that risking breaking the law is a bad idea when you're a parent who is responsible for a child.

Birneybau

I'd be appealing that.

One eyed Jack

Peist2007 wrote: »

Stupid sentence. Completely out of touch.

What's actually stupid, is getting caught with drugs.

What's stupid about the sentence? It's 200 hours community service, not a custodial sentence, she was back with her child an hour later, and is unlikely to want to appear in the dock again.

Fr_Dougal

Legalise marihuana and be done with it. Tax the bloody thing and take the profits out of the hands of criminals.

asherbassad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On just the sentence alone itself, I'm inclined to think it's quite likely to put her off appearing in the dock again given that she was embarrassed by the fact that she got caught with, well, what is admittedly a very small amount of drugs.

It might just make her take her responsibilities as a parent more seriously, given that the paper, and the OP, makes quite a point of the fact that she is also a parent.

Her responsibilities as a parent.

Do you know something about her parenting skills that the rest of us don't?

One eyed Jack

Superhorse wrote: »

Haha. Yeah the odd joint makes you a bad parent as opposed to getting twisted down the pub once a week.

I never made any judgement of her parenting skills. I don't see how the fact she is a parent is relevant at all, but if the media, and the OP, are going to make a point of the fact that this woman is a parent, then yes, I will question whether she thought risking getting caught with a ten spot seems like a good idea in hindsight.

Clearly, it isn't.

I'm not sure what anyone getting twisted down the pub has to do with this story? It's completely irrelevant actually, nothing more than a ridiculous effort to try and wedge in a strawman.

Peist2007

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On just the sentence alone itself, I'm inclined to think it's quite likely to put her off appearing in the dock again given that she was embarrassed by the fact that she got caught with, well, what is admittedly a very small amount of drugs.

It might just make her take her responsibilities as a parent more seriously, given that the paper, and the OP, makes quite a point of the fact that she is also a parent.

Stupid sentence. Completely out of touch.

henryporter

Not hard to see the ones who haven't smoked a joint in this thread :pac:. Getting stoned and quality of parenting aren't mutually exclusive. A lot of parent out there not getting stoned who don't have much by way of good parenting skills either.

Anyhow irregardless of this rather silly sentencing it might be better to promote this chap up to the High Court or beyond so that he could hand out some proper sentences to the scrotes who aren't getting them at the moment?

meeeeh

major bill wrote: »

Only took two pages before someone made an assumption on her parenting, bravo!!

In fairness anyone who brings a good mother argument into court is asking for it. I'm not saying she is not but I would like to know what "good mother" actually describes.

bodice ripper

What will the cops get charged with for pretending a 1/5 of a gram costs a tenner? Would it have been too embarrassing to bring her to court of three quids worth?

Superhorse

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On just the sentence alone itself, I'm inclined to think it's quite likely to put her off appearing in the dock again given that she was embarrassed by the fact that she got caught with, well, what is admittedly a very small amount of drugs.

It might just make her take her responsibilities as a parent more seriously, given that the paper, and the OP, makes quite a point of the fact that she is also a parent.

Haha. Yeah the odd joint makes you a bad parent as opposed to getting twisted down the pub once a week.