Ex RTÉ producer sentenced to 18 months in prison

Hammer89 · 10-03-2018 1:05am

Should've got 20 years, but that's because he was planning on bringing her to a Leeds match.

Ursus Horribilis · 10-03-2018 1:20am

Sounds like an overly lenient sentence to me. Even accepting that he was stung by this group, it's disturbing to think about what could have happened. Any sort of sexual abuse is appalling but when it's a child it's so much worse. It's not just about the sex acts themselves, it's about a grown man taking advantage of a vulnerable child who doesn't know how to handle the situation. Having said that, perhaps the length of the sentence is irrelevant. Creavan is now a household name in Ireland and he's not going to find life outside of prison easy.

clappyhappy · 10-03-2018 1:24am

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

As young as 8 years old ðŸ˜¡

The dirty bastard I hope he gets the right karma in prison.

REXER · 10-03-2018 8:18am

muckbrien wrote: »

Plenty of scumbags I'll wager among the paedophile hunters

They seem to attract riff raff to their ranks

Amazing how you got all that from just their accents! :eek:

erica74 · 10-03-2018 8:34am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

1 year and a half?...... Is there any consideration given to child safety at all any more? Did he have to actually rape and brutalise a child like the Athlone case before a more appropriate sentence could be dished out?

The sick fúck should have got years not months. Intention with meeting a child to have sex with them and only 18 months???? Sickening

Has that guy ever been sentenced? I can't find on Google if the cases against him have been dealt with by the courts?

Apologies, I didn't look hard enough - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/man-who-raped-girls-in-athlone-gets-two-life-sentences-1.1711509?mode=amp

In a plea for mitigation, Martin Giblin SC, defending, said the defendant had a difficult family background and his father had abandoned him when he was six.

Who. Fucking. Cares.

The two girls told specialist child interviewers that they were playing on a tree and had not eaten any cake yet.

The absolute innocence of that part of the interview.

Jack Kanoff · 10-03-2018 8:45am

18 months sentence...will do a year and then deported with a banning order on entering the country again.
Not sure if many people saw his account, but it was all female and all seemed below 18... But the account he was messaging was an obvious catfish and surprised a devious individual like himself fell for it.

tritium · 10-03-2018 8:57am

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

And we'd have absolutely no idea of his identity...

Generally the name of the convicted is available here unless revealing it would lead to the victim being identified I believe. The victim can waive that

We don’t however name the accused pre conviction in such cases. I believe that to be a good thing, the UK could probably take a leaf out of our book on that respect tbh.

Dr Brown · 10-03-2018 2:45pm

Anyone see the recent picture of this beast he looks like hes aged 20 years since getting arrested last year.

en%20court%20leeds%20%20171%20Read-Only.jpg

en%20court%20leeds%20%20171%20Read-Only.jpg

Dr Brown · 10-03-2018 2:50pm

actaphobia wrote: »

What disturbs me almost as much as his actions is the behavior of these vigilante groups who effectively stalk these predators. There is something disturbing, something that just doesn't sit right, with the almost gleeful satisfaction of seeing someone else's life ruined, albeit self-inflicted. I've seen some of the social media remarks and it is sickening.

I also think it is a class issue - the vigilantes all seem similar in background; certainly they are not middle class

Middle class people would have alot more to lose if they became "vigilantes" because they could be sued if the suspect was to get off.

Nekarsulm · 10-03-2018 3:12pm

In our local newspaper this week (The Anglo Celt) there is a court report of a 32 year old charged with defilment of a 16 year old in a crypt in a graveyard.

18 months suspended.

quintana76 · 10-03-2018 3:15pm

Will he get paid his increments when he is in jail ?

tretorn · 10-03-2018 7:53pm

I think he has been fired so he wont be getting any more increments. He is fifty four anyway so probably on the top of his payscale.

Yes, I agree he has aged so much since he was caught, I feel a teeny shred of sympathy for him.

Get Real · 10-03-2018 8:03pm

Strazdas wrote: »

On bail? The Gardai and PSNI are refusing to even charge anyone caught by vigilante gangs in this fashion, there has never been such a case before the courts north or south and probably never will be.

Refusing to charge? They don't even decide to charge in cases like this. It would be the DPP that directs a charge.

I commend the UK courts system for the speed in dealing with this. Doubt it would have been so swift here. And the fact it may not even have made it to our courts due to issues the DPP may find around entrapment and the chain of evidence kept by these vigilantes.

A good look at the legal system is warranted but this case only highlights an array of cases in Ireland where there is frustration over a direction of no charge, and countless technicalities that allow for appeals and money for legal aid and the system.

Flippyfloppy · 10-03-2018 8:18pm

tretorn wrote: »

Yes, I agree he has aged so much since he was caught, I feel a teeny shred of sympathy for him.

Not only did he go to Leeds with two boxes of condoms in his bag to meet a 13 year old, he was found with loads of child abuse images on his pc, and had been blackmailing real children for naked pics.

Captain Obvious · 10-03-2018 8:21pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I wonder why some of the other people 'stung' by similar groups in the same way are let off, especially by Gardai

Irelands grooming laws are pretty recent.

Dr Brown · 10-03-2018 8:24pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Not only did he go to Leeds with two boxes of condoms in his bag to meet a 13 year old, he was found with loads of child abuse images on his pc, and had been blackmailing real children for naked pics.

If it was up to me I'd have him put down.

Strazdas · 10-03-2018 8:24pm

Get Real wrote: »

Refusing to charge? They don't even decide to charge in cases like this. It would be the DPP that directs a charge.

I commend the UK courts system for the speed in dealing with this. Doubt it would have been so swift here. And the fact it may not even have made it to our courts due to issues the DPP may find around entrapment and the chain of evidence kept by these vigilantes.

A good look at the legal system is warranted but this case only highlights an array of cases in Ireland where there is frustration over a direction of no charge, and countless technicalities that allow for appeals and money for legal aid and the system.

You'll be interested to hear that three vigilantes or self styled "paedophile hunters" were charged in Belfast today with offences such as false imprisonment, intimidation, attempted intimidation and common assault.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43356565

Interesting to see that the authorities in Northern Ireland don't just view 'evidence' gathered by the vigilantes as completely inadmissible but that their activities are criminal and illegal - these charges seem to relate to a number of people they went after, not just one.

jimmycrackcorm · 10-03-2018 8:30pm

pistolpetes11 wrote:

Brilliant how quickly the UK Courts dealt with this case , he would be still out on bail in Ireland

He was refused bail because he was not a UK citizen which might have required a difficult extradition process of he refused to travel back for court.

We do similar for non Irish nationals charged here.

ElectraX · 14-03-2018 10:08am

anna080 wrote: »

Untrue. His mother is in a nursing home.

His mother died in 2015. Death notice is on rip. Ie

DrPhilG · 14-03-2018 10:33am

Omackeral wrote: »

He's a dirty yoke and all but he didn't actually abuse anyone, thankfully.

Reminds me of a line from a comedian I heard.

"You get life in jail for murder, but only a few years for attempted murder. Why should you get a lighter sentence just because you were shlt at it?"

His intent was to molest a little girl. Why should he get a lighter sentence just because he failed?

weldoninhio · 14-03-2018 10:44am

Sofiztikated wrote: »

You can't convict people on what they might do.

You might pick up a shovel, and cave someone's skull in, but we don't imprison you for it.

So the police can't arrest someone on their way to murder someone, even if they have evidence that they are planning on doing it?? Shure, they might NOT do it so we won't arrest them. Catch a grip of yourself.

weldoninhio · 14-03-2018 10:45am

Omackeral wrote: »

Oh I know. What I meant was he didn't physically abuse anyone and that's a bloody good thing. We know he's a grubby, dangerous, predatory f*cker and I'm glad he got caught and nobody was hurt. He looks like he knows he's ruined his life too. Delighted for the fool and I've no sympathy for him. Wouldn't say let's hang him though, that's a step too far.

We have no way of knowing that. How do we know this was the first girl he ever went to meet up with??

weldoninhio · 14-03-2018 10:48am

actaphobia wrote: »

What disturbs me almost as much as his actions is the behavior of these vigilante groups who effectively stalk these predators. There is something disturbing, something that just doesn't sit right, with the almost gleeful satisfaction of seeing someone else's life ruined, albeit self-inflicted. I've seen some of the social media remarks and it is sickening.

I also think it is a class issue - the vigilantes all seem similar in background; certainly they are not middle class

The b@stards!! Catching paedos before they can defile children. And working class b@stards at that. The police should be arresting them for going after middle class gentlemen like poor Kieran. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Grab All Association · 14-03-2018 10:52am

Nekarsulm wrote: »

In our local newspaper this week (The Anglo Celt) there is a court report of a 32 year old charged with defilment of a 16 year old in a crypt in a graveyard.

18 months suspended.

Your post makes him sound like a necrophiliac

Omackeral · 14-03-2018 11:04am

weldoninhio wrote: »

We have no way of knowing that. How do we know this was the first girl he ever went to meet up with??

I was referring specifically this decoy case where he was exposed.

Hector Savage · 14-03-2018 11:39am

weldoninhio wrote: »

The b@stards!! Catching paedos before they can defile children. And working class b@stards at that. The police should be arresting them for going after middle class gentlemen like poor Kieran. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Don't mistake criticism of the 'hunters' for defense of the groomer!

No one is denying that this guy is a creep, but do you really think these hunters are out there to "protect the kiddies" ?

They don't give a ****, they are just using this as an excuse to feel self righteous.
I wonder do they give any money to rape crisis center ? or help victims of child sexual abuse ? - doubt it somehow.

It's like prisoners in prisons have a code - even they hate the peadophile - fine upstanding moral men in there for murder beating up a peadophile - one form of scum attacking another form of scum.

Have you seen the guy who does this ? - he looks like a right dodgy ****, id cross the street if I saw him.

weldoninhio · 14-03-2018 12:46pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

Don't mistake criticism of the 'hunters' for defense of the groomer!

No one is denying that this guy is a creep, but do you really think these hunters are out there to "protect the kiddies" ?

They don't give a ****, they are just using this as an excuse to feel self righteous.
I wonder do they give any money to rape crisis center ? or help victims of child sexual abuse ? - doubt it somehow.

It's like prisoners in prisons have a code - even they hate the peadophile - fine upstanding moral men in there for murder beating up a peadophile - one form of scum attacking another form of scum.

Have you seen the guy who does this ? - he looks like a right dodgy ****, id cross the street if I saw him.

If he wore a monocle, spoke with a D4/refined English accent and top hat would you find him more palatable??

I couldn't give a shiny shyte if they have a trademarked song and dance that they do every time they catch one of these scumbags.

I don't give money to the RCC and i'm not qualified to help victims of CSA, do you and are you? Doesn't mean I wouldn't stop a rape if I saw one happening. Your line of reasoning is pathetic.

fortwilliam · 14-03-2018 12:50pm

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

God that’s an awfully short sentence.

So is that.

Red_Wake · 14-03-2018 12:51pm

There's not a punishment harsh enough for people who abuse kids imo.

Graces7 · 14-03-2018 1:45pm

mad m wrote: »

I think it’s very lenient of the judge/courts. Think he should of got more in my opinion.

A lot more. Derisory sentence

Chrongen · 14-03-2018 2:02pm

screamer wrote: »

Because prisons are busting at the seams. I'd love to farm some of the biggest scumbags out to the biggest **** hole prisons in the world. If they got out alive they'd never ever want to go back.

A proven fallacy. The fact is that the harsher the prison the higher the recidivism.

Chrongen · 14-03-2018 2:06pm

shamrock55 wrote: »

Yes but if I was on my way to someone's house with said shovel with the intention to cave someone's head in and got stopped at the door by cops,the crime was going to happen alright it just got stopped

So what should you be charged with then? You haven't actually done anything but you could have done anything from simply threatening the somebody to clattering them once to beating them unconscious to maiming them permanently to murdering them.

Which do you get charged for?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 14-03-2018 2:12pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

If he wore a monocle, spoke with a D4/refined English accent and top hat would you find him more palatable??

I couldn't give a shiny shyte if they have a trademarked song and dance that they do every time they catch one of these scumbags.

I don't give money to the RCC and i'm not qualified to help victims of CSA, do you and are you? Doesn't mean I wouldn't stop a rape if I saw one happening. Your line of reasoning is pathetic.

Yes.

Chrongen · 14-03-2018 2:22pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

So the police can't arrest someone on their way to murder someone, even if they have evidence that they are planning on doing it?? Shure, they might NOT do it so we won't arrest them. Catch a grip of yourself.

Nobody said anything about the cops' ability to intervene in what they suspect to be the commissioning of a crime. We're talking about charges here. You can't charge somebody with murder if the person they are supposed to have murdered is in fact not dead.

McCrack · 14-03-2018 2:30pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

He was refused bail because he was not a UK citizen which might have required a difficult extradition process of he refused to travel back for court.

We do similar for non Irish nationals charged here.

He wasn't refused bail. He was granted bail the morning after his arrest.

He returned for sentence.

McCrack · 14-03-2018 2:34pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

So the police can't arrest someone on their way to murder someone, even if they have evidence that they are planning on doing it?? Shure, they might NOT do it so we won't arrest them. Catch a grip of yourself.

You're confusing conspiracy with mens rea

To successfully convict the prosecution must prove mens rea (guilty intention) and actus reus (the act itself)

end of the road · 14-03-2018 3:52pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

If he wore a monocle, spoke with a D4/refined English accent and top hat would you find him more palatable??

in short no . they will never have my support because it's clear they are not genuinely interested in protecting children. i have heard a few interviews with some of these people on radio over here and to me, they are unable to take any criticism, trot out the same robotic scripted responces and generally have no feeling or conviction when speaking. the police will always get the credit for solving these cases even if they didn't come across the evidence first, as the police are the only legitimate criminal hunters.

Hector Savage · 14-03-2018 4:12pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

If he wore a monocle, spoke with a D4/refined English accent and top hat would you find him more palatable??

I couldn't give a shiny shyte if they have a trademarked song and dance that they do every time they catch one of these scumbags.

I don't give money to the RCC and i'm not qualified to help victims of CSA, do you and are you? Doesn't mean I wouldn't stop a rape if I saw one happening. Your line of reasoning is pathetic.

I'm only saying these guys shouldnt be looked on as heroes.

Also, don't they realise that by transmitting these videos live they could be damaging the eventual court case ?
- not to mention of course transmitting an innocent person (if they make a mistaken identity - has happened) would ruin their lives - the good logical facebook users don't exactly stick around for a retraction.

Just give the videos to the police should be the same conviction with that and all the related evidence.

But no, they'd rather fish for social media likes.

Strazdas · 14-03-2018 4:24pm

end of the road wrote: »

in short no . they will never have my support because it's clear they are not genuinely interested in protecting children. i have heard a few interviews with some of these people on radio over here and to me, they are unable to take any criticism, trot out the same robotic scripted responces and generally have no feeling or conviction when speaking. the police will always get the credit for solving these cases even if they didn't come across the evidence first, as the police are the only legitimate criminal hunters.

And they've taken to wearing black uniforms / jackets with the name of the vigilante group printed on them. It's so obvious they are trying to set themselves up as some sort of militia or alternative police force.

It's no wonder the PSNI have taken to prosecuting the vigilantes and treating them as criminals. A gang of 8 or 10 people surrounding a person and preventing them from moving for an hour (whilst screaming abuse in their face and live streaming it on Facebook) is clearly a criminal act. Only the police force have the legal right to stop and detain people on the street, absolutely nobody else.

McCrack · 14-03-2018 4:33pm

Strazdas wrote: »

And they've taken to wearing black uniforms / jackets with the name of the vigilante group printed on them. It's so obvious they are trying to set themselves up as some sort of militia or alternative police force.

It's no wonder the PSNI have taken to prosecuting the vigilantes and treating them as criminals. A gang of 8 or 10 people surrounding a person and preventing them from moving for an hour (whilst screaming abuse in their face and live streaming it on Facebook) is clearly a criminal act. Only the police force have the legal right to stop and detain people on the street, absolutely nobody else.

There is a lot of inaccuracy in this thread

Please look up Criminal Law Act 1997 and in particular Section 4 which permits any person to arrest another that has committed an arrestable offence

end of the road · 14-03-2018 4:43pm

Strazdas wrote: »

And they've taken to wearing black uniforms / jackets with the name of the vigilante group printed on them. It's so obvious they are trying to set themselves up as some sort of militia or alternative police force.

It's no wonder the PSNI have taken to prosecuting the vigilantes and treating them as criminals. A gang of 8 or 10 people surrounding a person and preventing them from moving for an hour (whilst screaming abuse in their face and live streaming it on Facebook) is clearly a criminal act. Only the police force have the legal right to stop and detain people on the street, absolutely nobody else.

that's good to hear the PSNI are prosecuting this lot. maybe eventually the uk police will get the balls to do it if they can. these groups may claim they are operating fully within the law but lets be real, they aren't trained legal experts so there is likely something the police could get them on if they really wanted.
if these groups cared so much about children, instead of doing what they are, they would be out protesting and calling for life sentences for paedophiles and any other child abusers. they would actually have support if they did that.

McCrack wrote: »

There is a lot of inaccuracy in this thread

Please look up Criminal Law Act 1997 and in particular Section 4 which permits any person to arrest another that has committed an arrestable offence

only if a policeman is persuing the person being arrested from what i understand. for example, a suspect is running away and a policeman is coming after them and i trip the suspect up.

AllForIt · 14-03-2018 4:47pm

Pat Kenny tonight at 10pm talking to the vigilant group.

https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/pat-kenny-predator-exposure-619380

Hector Savage · 14-03-2018 4:56pm

Also, lets say someone is about to shoplift ... but chickens out and doesn't do it ... so hasn't committed an offence, can they be done for it ?

In this case too, I mean we all are fairly certain he would have acted if there had been a girl there, but there wasn't and he didn't.

Who knows how people would act, maybe chatting online is one thing but when he saw the child in reality he would have copped on and walked away ?

It brings up a lot of tough questions, where do you draw the line on intent ...

Hoboo · 14-03-2018 4:58pm

McCrack wrote: »

There is a lot of inaccuracy in this thread

Please look up Criminal Law Act 1997 and in particular Section 4 which permits any person to arrest another that has committed an arrestable offence

An arrestable offence is defined as a crime punishable by more than 5 years in prison, you can not detain someone for any or every crime.

ohnonotgmail · 14-03-2018 4:59pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

Also, lets say someone is about to shoplift ... but chickens out and doesn't do it ... so hasn't committed an offence, can they be done for it ?

In this case too, I mean we all are fairly certain he would have acted if there had been a girl there, but there wasn't and he didn't.

Who knows how people would act, maybe chatting online is one thing but when he saw the child in reality he would have copped on and walked away ?

It brings up a lot of tough questions, where do you draw the line on intent ...

grooming a child is an offence in itself.

McCrack · 14-03-2018 5:03pm

Hoboo wrote: »

An arrestable offence is defined as a crime punishable by more than 5 years in prison, you can not detain someone for any or every crime.

Yes, hence why I specifically said "arrestable offence"

Strazdas · 14-03-2018 5:38pm

McCrack wrote: »

Yes, hence why I specifically said "arrestable offence"

If you have a trail of documentary or online evidence about a person you believe to have committed a crime or who is planning to commit one, you should pass that evidence onto the police and allow them to proceed as they see fit.

You do not have the right to surround the person along with eight of your mates on the street and illegally detain them for half an hour or an hour. There is only one legitimate police force.

end of the road · 14-03-2018 5:41pm

Strazdas wrote: »

If you have a trail of documentary or online evidence about a person you believe to have committed a crime or who is planning to commit one, you should pass that evidence onto the police and allow them to proceed as they see fit.

You do not have the right to surround the person along with eight of your mates on the street and illegally detain them for half an hour or an hour. There is only one legitimate police force.

exactly. and it will never be these "paedophile hunters"

McCrack · 14-03-2018 5:45pm

Strazdas wrote: »

If you have a trail of documentary or online evidence about a person you believe to have committed a crime or who is planning to commit one, you should pass that evidence onto the police and allow them to proceed as they see fit.

You do not have the right to surround the person along with eight of your mates on the street and illegally detain them for half an hour or an hour. There is only one legitimate police force.

But you see the right of arrest in a public place exists

Refer to Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1997

Use of information and communication technology to facilitate sexual exploitation of child is an offence under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 punishable on indictment up to 14 years - therefore it is an "arrestable offence" - therefore any person/s can detain/arrest another person in a public place for this offence.

Jim Bob Scratcher · 14-03-2018 8:02pm

AllForIt wrote: »

Pat Kenny tonight at 10pm talking to the vigilant group.

https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/pat-kenny-predator-exposure-619380

I wonder will he be able to refrain from swearing?

Ex RTÉ producer sentenced to 18 months in prison

Comments