The great Bail debacle

hullaballoo · 02-06-2016 01:53PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

Small point re the new title: surely it wasn't "set at €100"; it was set at €1000, reduced to €100 due to the "poor mouth" and then reinstated when the accused produced the wad of cash ?

That's true. I'll give it another go...

Paz-CCFC · 02-06-2016 02:04PM

Re the comments about the bail being to punish her for a crime and to deter others, is that its purpose? Isn't bail solely to ensure that the accused returns to the court, with any deterrence/punishment element being the punishment?

Re the judge, I would think that those types of comments when a trial is ongoing run the risk of prejudicing the defendant. Although the article states that she was going to plead guilty (did she actually do that on the day or was it pushed back for the later hearing when she'll have an interpretor? if so, could she change her mind in the meantime?), she still has to be sentenced. The judge doesn't seem to have heard any mitigating or aggravating evidence in relation to the crime/the accused's past record (I'd imagine that this will be done at the later hearing, when she has the interpretor). Yet, he's already decided that she "couldn't give two hoots" and is "bleeding the system". He doesn't sound like the impartial adjudicator that he is meant to be. He should be saving any comments like that until after the case has been concluded, imo.

Also, is discussion about an ongoing case at district court level permitted on Boards?

Fred Swanson · 02-06-2016 02:04PM

This post has been deleted.

Todd Toddington III · 02-06-2016 02:49PM

Carawaystick wrote:

I missed the report of the crime she was convicted of, please tell us.

Go and sh $#e this isn't a courthouse so you can stick your presumption of innocence where the sun don't shine ....she's not in front of a judge for all the good deeds she's done buttercup

Pro Hoc Vice · 02-06-2016 04:53PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Depends on the Order, usually its own bond and away you go, sometimes its cash lodgement or part cash and bond, and also independent surety which can also be bond or cash or mixture.

nuac · 03-06-2016 12:30PM

Todd Toddington III wrote: »

Go and sh $#e this isn't a courthouse so you can stick your presumption of innocence where the sun don't shine ....she's not in front of a judge for all the good deeds she's done buttercup

/Mod//
Perhaps a tad more legal discussion and less vulgar abuse?

GerardKeating · 03-06-2016 01:27PM

colm_mcm wrote: »

Bail was set at €1000, she didn't have that much apparently, bail reduced to €100. Pulls out €1600 and peels off €100.

Many the rest of the money was her rent for the coming month.

Jack Killian · 03-06-2016 01:29PM

GerardKeating wrote: »

Many the rest of the money was her rent for the coming month.

She should have thought of that before she went off stealing - repeatedly - now shouldn't she ?

mickoneill31 · 03-06-2016 01:32PM

GerardKeating wrote: »

Many the rest of the money was her rent for the coming month.

Or maybe it's the proceeds of crime. No point speculating about it though. I'm guessing as much as you are.

Pro Hoc Vice · 03-06-2016 03:10PM

GerardKeating wrote: »

Many the rest of the money was her rent for the coming month.

There is lots of talk about the money being the person's rent, I just have missed where that was reported can you show me the report that it was claimed by the accused that it was rent money.

Dinny Byrne has Angina · 03-06-2016 03:28PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is lots of talk about the money being the person's rent, I just have missed where that was reported can you show me the report that it was claimed by the accused that it was rent money.

Nobody has reported that either way.

The point is that there are plenty of 'poor' people who have 1600 at the end of the month, mostly to pay the month's mortgage or rent, food and lighting. It's approximately equal to a month's salary on minimum wage.

We have here a very obvious possible explanation as to why a low-income household might have that kind of cash.

There is no need for wild speculation over such a normal event. At the very least, i hope the judge made all the appropriate enquires before demanding that all the cash be paid into court.

seamus · 03-06-2016 03:34PM

Dinny Byrne has Angina wrote: »

Nobody has reported that either way.

The point is that there are plenty of 'poor' people who have 1600 at the end of the month, mostly to pay the month's mortgage or rent, food and lighting. It's approximately equal to a month's salary on minimum wage.

Do they usually carry it all around in their purse?

Pro Hoc Vice · 03-06-2016 03:34PM

Dinny Byrne has Angina wrote: »

Nobody has reported that either way.

The point is that there are plenty of 'poor' people who have 1600 at the end of the month, mostly to pay the month's mortgage or rent, food and lighting. It's approximately equal to a month's salary on minimum wage.

We have here a very obvious possible explanation as to why a low-income household might have that kind of cash.

There is no need for wild speculation over such a normal event. At the very least, i hope the judge made all the appropriate enquires before demanding that all the cash be paid into court.

If that was the case she could have told the court.

Jack Killian · 03-06-2016 03:35PM

Dinny Byrne has Angina wrote: »

Nobody has reported that either way.

The point is that there are plenty of 'poor' people who have 1600 at the end of the month, mostly to pay the month's mortgage or rent, food and lighting. It's approximately equal to a month's salary on minimum wage.

We have here a very obvious possible explanation as to why a low-income household might have that kind of cash.

There is no need for wild speculation over such a normal event. At the very least, i hope the judge made all the appropriate enquires before demanding that all the cash be paid into court.

Most don't have €1600 cash in their pockets while in court and telling a judge that they haven't any.

Why should the judge "make appropriate enquiries" ? Does a Garda check to make sure that I have the €80 before sending me a fine in the post ? Does the M50 Toll check if I can afford the €3 extra ?

CIARAN_BOYLE · 03-06-2016 03:40PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

Most don't have €1600 cash in their pockets while in court and telling a judge that they haven't any.

Why should the judge "make appropriate enquiries" ? Does a Garda check to make sure that I have the €80 before sending me a fine in the post ? Does the M50 Toll check if I can afford the €3 extra ?

Its not a fine though, its a bond, and if the judge can decrease it because the accused pleads the poor mouth the judge should check before they increase it back up again.

Jack Killian · 03-06-2016 03:45PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Its not a fine though, its a bond, and if the judge can decrease it because the accused pleads the poor mouth the judge should check before they increase it back up again.

What check did he do before he decreased it ?

Dinny Byrne has Angina · 03-06-2016 03:47PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

If that was the case she could have told the court.

First of all, the Court agrees that this woman needs an interpreter.

Also, what we're reading is a court report in a newspaper; not a transcript. The media don't report every salient fact in busy district courtrooms, probably because they have trouble hearing everybody.

This is why court transcripts exist.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 03-06-2016 03:48PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

What check did he do before he decreased it ?

Who knows, the reporting either seems to tell half the story or there was insufficient checks before decreasing and subsequently increasing it.

Sleeper12 · 03-06-2016 03:51PM

Jack Killian wrote:

What check did he do before he decreased it ?

A very bad one. He took her at her word.

Jack Killian · 03-06-2016 04:22PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Who knows, the reporting either seems to tell half the story or there was insufficient checks before decreasing and subsequently increasing it.

Well then those insufficient checks balance each other out.

It might teach her not to come into a country and repeatedly commit crimes; if she behaves herself then she's welcome; if not, then we have too many of our own homegrown lowlifes to deal with without accepting a few more.

porsche boy · 03-06-2016 04:28PM

OSI wrote:

Yes. How does anyone "adult" without one.

Bertie Ahern "Adulted" without one for years aparrently.

Pro Hoc Vice · 03-06-2016 04:43PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A very bad one. He took her at her word.

If the Judge did not reduce the amount then the person would have been taken to Limerick Prison, the next day on legal aid a barrister for the women would have made an application for High Court bail.

Judges must set fair and reasonable bail, as to do otherwise would be in breach of the persons constitutional rights. Have you ever visited a busy district court, in a morning 100 such cases yes 100 plus cases can be processed, giving orders for copy statements, setting hearing dates, setting sentence dates, setting Bail. Just work out how little time the court has to deal with each case. Part of that is that Judges often take people at their word (for the mundane processing of the case) many people treat the court with respect, in this case the Judge felt his largess was being abused.

Also when setting Bail the Judge will look at the possibility of a prison sentence as if the legislation does not allow one, or the Courts for a first offence don't usually give one then its a waste of prison space and money to unreasonably refuse bail.

Its simple the Judge seem to give this women a break and then may have had it thrown back at him. If the women was unhappy she was quite enttled to go to The High Court and have them give bail.

Sleeper12 · 03-06-2016 04:58PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote:

Its simple the Judge seem to give this women a break and then may have had it thrown back at him. If the women was unhappy she was quite enttled to go to The High Court and have them give bail.

Totally agree. Some other posters are suggesting that it was her rent money. If this was the case she would or her solicitor would have brought this to the judges attention & the judge would have considered this.
She's an out & out trickster. The judge who sits in court day in & day out copped on to this.

Pro Hoc Vice · 03-06-2016 05:03PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Totally agree. Some other posters are suggesting that it was her rent money. If this was the case she would or her solicitor would have brought this to the judges attention & the judge would have considered this.
She's an out & out trickster. The judge who sits in court day in & day out copped on to this.

If the money was to pay a bill or was not hers to use then of course as you say the solicitor would have brought that to the Judges attention very quickly. Then the Judge would have said fine and asked her to go straight to pay rent or whatever and please furnish a receipt to the Court.

I wonder how many of the people who give out about the courts have ever visited a court to see what actually happens, it is the cheapest entertainment around at free.

foggy_lad · 03-06-2016 05:11PM

Dinny Byrne has Angina wrote: »

First of all, the Court agrees that this woman needs an interpreter.

Also, what we're reading is a court report in a newspaper; not a transcript. The media don't report every salient fact in busy district courtrooms, probably because they have trouble hearing everybody.

This is why court transcripts exist.

Does the woman need an interpreter though? Many people will claim to need an interpreter as a way of having the case dealt with more favourably. Non-national convicts are already given less/no jail time lest they are disadvantaged because they are not so fluent in English.

Should we have a ruling that someone in the country more than 3 years is not entitled to an interpretor as they should have enough understanding of the language to take part in their defence and instruct a solicitor?

Sleeper12 · 03-06-2016 05:15PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote:

I wonder how many of the people who give out about the courts have ever visited a court to see what actually happens, it is the cheapest entertainment around at free.

Again I have to say I totally agree. A day in court can be a very entertaining day out, so long as you are not the defendant. I urge everyone to have a look at our justice system up close.

I've visited small claims court, high court & district court several times. It can be entertaining and a little sad at the same time. I've seen drug addicts late for court because they have to get methadone. Some can't even open their eyes. I've seen some literally walk into walls.

Pro Hoc Vice · 03-06-2016 05:18PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Does the woman need an interpreter though? Many people will claim to need an interpreter as a way of having the case dealt with more favourably. Non-national convicts are already given less/no jail time lest they are disadvantaged because they are not so fluent in English.

Should we have a ruling that someone in the country more than 3 years is not entitled to an interpretor as they should have enough understanding of the language to take part in their defence and instruct a solicitor?

There is a difference between dealing with a bail matter and a hearing matter, for a non native speaker. Even in the district court at a trial or sentence complex matters arise and can lead to an injustice. To have such a rule a live here for 3 years, would be in breach of the Constitution "everyone entitled to a trial in due course of law" and the European Convention of Human Rights which specifically gives the right the only stipulation is you can understand the proceedings. Also have interpretors speeds the whole process up if someone has poor English.

Pro Hoc Vice · 03-06-2016 05:20PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Again I have to say I totally agree. A day in court can be a very entertaining day out, so long as you are not the defendant. I urge everyone to have a look at our justice system up close.

I've visited small claims court, high court & district court several times. It can be entertaining and a little sad at the same time. I've seen drug addicts late for court because they have to get methadone. Some can't even open their eyes. I've seen some literally walk into walls.

Yes those are the sad cases, I wonder how many keyboard warriors would say string them up if they say the sad state many are in much of the trouble caused by the attitude to drugs.

Sleeper12 · 03-06-2016 05:22PM

foggy_lad wrote:

Should we have a ruling that someone in the country more than 3 years is not entitled to an interpretor as they should have enough understanding of the language to take part in their defence and instruct a solicitor?

There are people living in Britain for 50 years & can't speak a word of English.

Jack Killian · 03-06-2016 05:23PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Yes those are the sad cases, I wonder how many keyboard warriors would say string them up if they say the sad state many are in much of the trouble caused by the attitude to drugs.

Whose attitude? Choices and consequences apply there.

If someone is in court then it's because they committed a crime; personally I'd prefer not see drug-taking as a crime in itself, but if you commit a crime to get money for drugs, then there should not be any preferential treatment.

The great Bail debacle

Comments