Re: Glorious examples of the calibre of the Irish Judiciary
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:56 pm
As I said, it's the numbers dropping off that's surprising.
The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
The amount isn't the issue. It wasn't her money to take.Mustapha wrote:She was earning 160 a week and claiming 140 she wasn't entitled to. Which bumped her up to pulling in less than 16K a year.
Yes, she's committed a crime over an extended period of time and deserves punishment. I just don't see her spending 10 months in jail as justice.
I certainly didn't hear either of the police officers asking for clemency for this drunk especially Garda Casserly who suffered a brain injury,she also suffered a stroke while in hospital which left her paralysed for a time.anonymous_joe wrote:Do you mean the case where the victim's wife asked for him to be spared jail? And the judge noted that was a serious factor in the sentence he was handing down?The Sun God wrote:I don't see how the greater society benefits by locking up an elderly woman over a paltry 100k. Had she the wherewithal to repay that money, her sentence would have been suspended. She is getting locked up because she is poor. What about that culchie fcuk last week in Galway? Kills a man and seriously injures 2 police officers while driving pissed out his head......no jail time, Why ?... because his family is well connected in Galway. Compare and contrast the two cases and tell me which is the lesser of the two evils.Mullet 2 wrote:The Sun God wrote:I am very much in the 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time' camp but the mind boggles at the stupidity and injustice of this.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/c ... 32597.html
What's the problem here? Aside from the sentence being too short.
Mustapha wrote:She was earning 160 a week and claiming 140 she wasn't entitled to. Which bumped her up to pulling in less than 16K a year.
Yes, she's committed a crime over an extended period of time and deserves punishment. I just don't see her spending 10 months in jail as justice.
That's a problem for those sentences not this one.CM11 wrote:I think there's an argument that on a relative scale, if she actually spends 10 months in jail, it makes a mockery of all the violent repeat offenders who apparently deserve a 150th chance to redeem themselves and get a slap on the wrist.
But defending her actions outright and saying they were mild?
Agreed.Mullet 2 wrote:That's a problem for those sentences not this one.CM11 wrote:I think there's an argument that on a relative scale, if she actually spends 10 months in jail, it makes a mockery of all the violent repeat offenders who apparently deserve a 150th chance to redeem themselves and get a slap on the wrist.
But defending her actions outright and saying they were mild?
Two wrongs and all that
No you areMullet 2 wrote:Mustapha wrote:She was earning 160 a week and claiming 140 she wasn't entitled to. Which bumped her up to pulling in less than 16K a year.
Yes, she's committed a crime over an extended period of time and deserves punishment. I just don't see her spending 10 months in jail as justice.
Well, then you're a spa.
Not defending her actions at all. Definitely deserves punishment. But a ten month custodial sentence seems unbalanced when comparing to other sentences.CM11 wrote:Agreed.Mullet 2 wrote:That's a problem for those sentences not this one.CM11 wrote:I think there's an argument that on a relative scale, if she actually spends 10 months in jail, it makes a mockery of all the violent repeat offenders who apparently deserve a 150th chance to redeem themselves and get a slap on the wrist.
But defending her actions outright and saying they were mild?
Two wrongs and all that
Would you give up, I have met well to do people who when things got a little rough took everything that was going including carers allowance for someone who didn't need it.Mustapha wrote:Social welfare fraud AND overpayments due to clerical error was reported at 1.1 Million a week in 2016. When you take into account that social welfare spend was 19.8 Billion in 2016, the narrative that fraudsters are ruining our economy is bollix.Nolanator wrote:Social welfare fraud is a massive drain on the exchequer, it need to be stopped and fraudsters punished.
That's what a lot of social welfare frauds look like. It's not all Martin Cahill claiming the dole.
And yes, that's what social welfare fraudsters look like. People who are trying to keep themselves and their families together. Of course there's Martin Cahills and the like but there's also mothers of four who are trying to keep a roof over their family's head. 16k a year isn't exactly rolling in it.
Maybe there's more space in female prisons, allowing for the handing out of proper sentences compared to our bustling male facilities, which you'd want to be a fairly elite level scumbag to get into?Mustapha wrote:Not defending her actions at all. Definitely deserves punishment. But a ten month custodial sentence seems unbalanced when comparing to other sentences.CM11 wrote:Agreed.Mullet 2 wrote:That's a problem for those sentences not this one.CM11 wrote:I think there's an argument that on a relative scale, if she actually spends 10 months in jail, it makes a mockery of all the violent repeat offenders who apparently deserve a 150th chance to redeem themselves and get a slap on the wrist.
But defending her actions outright and saying they were mild?
Two wrongs and all that
Mustapha wrote:Not defending her actions at all. Definitely deserves punishment. But a ten month custodial sentence seems unbalanced when comparing to other sentences.CM11 wrote:Agreed.Mullet 2 wrote:That's a problem for those sentences not this one.CM11 wrote:I think there's an argument that on a relative scale, if she actually spends 10 months in jail, it makes a mockery of all the violent repeat offenders who apparently deserve a 150th chance to redeem themselves and get a slap on the wrist.
But defending her actions outright and saying they were mild?
Two wrongs and all that
I can read good, honest. Just didn't quote the correct post.Mullet 2 wrote:A spa who can't read
Gavin Duffy wrote:Well, it seems she got off lightly compared to this chap https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/012 ... are-fraud/
That's all very odd. The guy didn't have a ticket and then abused the ticket inspector. Why did she need to get involved? There must have been some unsavoury comments exchanged between the men that she took exception to.
maybe she's just a lippy, nosey fúcker. she is a bird afterallNolanator wrote:That's all very odd. The guy didn't have a ticket and then abused the ticket inspector. Why did she need to get involved? There must have been some unsavoury comments exchanged between the men that she took exception to.
And:A six-year-old boy, who developed an allergic reaction to his mother's lipstick, has been awarded €12,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court.
Barrister Maria Watson, counsel for the child, who is not being identified to avoid peer bullying, told Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke, that when he was only three his mother painted the first initial of his name on his forehead with her lipstick.
Ms Watson said the letter remained on the child's forehead for about two hours before his mother attempted to wash it off and was unable to do so. She found it had caused a mark and injury to her son's skin.
Counsel, who appeared with Moloney Solicitors for the boy, said that in March 2015 the child had been playing with his mother's make-up bag when she had joined the play and put the mark on his forehead.
Ms Watson said the mother had found it very difficult to remove the No 507 "Relentless Rouge" long-lasting lipstick and had cleaned the area with Silcocks base cleaner. Over the following 48 hours the area had become red, swollen and blistered.
She told the court that the blistering rash persisted for about a week but although this had settled it had left a well-defined area of discolouration corresponding with the location of the lipstick.
Ms Watson said the child's mother had brought her son to a consultant dermatologist at the Blackrock Clinic who had advised her that the area of erythema on the forehead would gradually improve. A final review in July 2017 revealed no sign of the mark.
The boy, through his mother, had sued L'Oreal (UK) Limited, which has its registered office at Hammersmith Road, London, and which entered a full defence to the claim.
L'Oreal stated the product had not been defective, was of merchantable quality and was fit for intended purpose, which was for use as a lipstick.
Ms Watson told the court that L'Oreal had claimed it was not negligent or guilty of breach of duty and the boy's mother had not used the product for the purpose for which it had been sold or intended. In its defence L'Oreal had claimed the injuries had been caused by an acute allergic reaction, which was not reasonably foreseeable from the defendant's perspective.
She said a settlement offer of €12,000 had been offered to the boy and she was recommending that the court approve and rule it as appropriate.
Judge Groarke, approving the settlement, said a medical report had related the lipstick to the boy's injury.
A garda sergeant, who had to move into the spare room at home because of his snoring, has been awarded damages in the High Court for a head-butt injury to his nose.
Sergeant Noel McSweeney, who suffered the injury while on duty, told a garda compensation hearing that his snoring affected his wife more than it did him and he had to move into the spare room “on a couple of occasions.”
Barrister Ellen Gleeson told Mr Justice Michael Twomey that Sergeant McSweeney, of Enniscorthy Garda Station had been engaged in a search for a missing woman in May 2012 when the incident occurred.
McSweeney told Ms Gleeson, who appeared for him with solicitor Ernest Cantillon, that the woman had been found extremely intoxicated and aggressive in a car in which there had been drugs and she had been taken into custody.
“She jumped back and threw her head backwards, hitting me in the nose and upper teeth,” Sergeant McSweeney said.
He said he had fractures to four of his upper front teeth and the line of his nose had been knocked slightly off. He suffered a deviated septum which had resulted in a restriction of the airflow through his nose.
“The appearance of my nose wasn’t upsetting to me so I decided not to have surgery correcting it. Perhaps if I was a model it would be different,” he said.
Sergeant McSweeney said he had been reviewed six months after the incident and had told his doctor about his snoring problem. “I wasn’t aware of it but I did have to sleep in the spare room on a couple of occasions,” he said.
McSweeney told William Maher, counsel for the State, that he had only slight discomfort with the airflow in his nose. He had decided against surgery after having been told that surgery would be required only for cosmetic reasons.
Judge Twomey, who has been appointed to deal with the Garda Compensation List and had been hearing such cases for the first time Monday, said the Book of Quantum suggested damages of €7,500 for minor dental damage and he would add to this €18,000 compensation for the injury to Sergeant McSweeney’s nose.
He awarded total damages of €25,500 and costs against the State.
Don’t know all the details but it sounds like he did detain her unlawfully because she took his picture.HighKingLeinster wrote:maybe she's just a lippy, nosey fúcker. she is a bird afterallNolanator wrote:That's all very odd. The guy didn't have a ticket and then abused the ticket inspector. Why did she need to get involved? There must have been some unsavoury comments exchanged between the men that she took exception to.
This seems entirely legit.A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.
Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.
Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.Session back in mine boyz
Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ore7u6kzFTQBullettyme wrote:This seems entirely legit.A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.
Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.
Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.Session back in mine boyz
EDIT: I also found this kind of funny from an older article. Imagine seeing your solicitor up in court before you :
Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.
More like Henry Winkler as the lawyer in arrested development.Flametop wrote:https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ore7u6kzFTQBullettyme wrote:This seems entirely legit.A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.
Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.
Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.Session back in mine boyz
EDIT: I also found this kind of funny from an older article. Imagine seeing your solicitor up in court before you :
Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.
MrJonno wrote:More like Henry Winkler as the lawyer in arrested development.Flametop wrote:https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ore7u6kzFTQBullettyme wrote:This seems entirely legit.A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.
Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.
Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.Session back in mine boyz
EDIT: I also found this kind of funny from an older article. Imagine seeing your solicitor up in court before you :
Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.
"If you'll excuse me I have a drink driving case coming up now"
"Good luck I hope you get a good result"
"I think I will, I have a really good lawyer"
Something like that anyway
Bullettyme wrote:MrJonno wrote:More like Henry Winkler as the lawyer in arrested development.Flametop wrote:https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ore7u6kzFTQBullettyme wrote:This seems entirely legit.A SOLICITOR CAUGHT with cocaine in his wallet during a professional visit to Mountjoy Prison has been given a chance to avoid a criminal conviction after a judge accepted claims he did not know he was carrying the drug.
Dublin based lawyer, Aonghus McCarthy, 32, who maintained someone else put the drugs in his wallet at a party was told he would get a strike out if he donated €1,250 to a drug addiction treatment centre.
Tbh I'm happy they're not banging people up for drug possession, but going into a prison with one. Surely for pure stupidity he should spend a couple of days in there.Session back in mine boyz
EDIT: I also found this kind of funny from an older article. Imagine seeing your solicitor up in court before you :
Mr McCarthy was excused from having to attend the case next week. Before his own hearing he had been acting for his clients in other court cases in the CCJ; afterwards he went back to work representing defendants in the district court.
"If you'll excuse me I have a drink driving case coming up now"
"Good luck I hope you get a good result"
"I think I will, I have a really good lawyer"
Something like that anyway
Barry: "Sorry, sorry, sorry I'm so late. I had another hearing. Here's the good news: I think I'm going to get off. I have a good lawyer."
Yeah agree.camroc1 wrote:This has everything to do with the law looking after its own, as he'd have been kicked out of the Law Society with a criminal conviction.
The question that has to be asked is would, say, an inmates relative, found bringing cocaine into prison be treated so leniently ?
My guess is that they would not.
So much for blind justice.
Looking at that photo makes me think a real lawyer is lying in a pool of blood in the nearest jax wondering why someone stole his filesFlametop wrote:That lad really doesn’t look like he went to Univercity and the only bar exam he’s ever sat through is doing cans of Dutch Gold in the jacks of Coppers.
And cocaine.MrJonno wrote:Looking at that photo makes me think a real lawyer is lying in a pool of blood in the nearest jax wondering why someone stole his filesFlametop wrote:That lad really doesn’t look like he went to Univercity and the only bar exam he’s ever sat through is doing cans of Dutch Gold in the jacks of Coppers.
Are you buying or selling?anonymous_joe wrote:You think somebody would normally be getting a conviction for that little drugs...?
Nah not really, and I said as much earlier, but bringing into a prison?anonymous_joe wrote:You think somebody would normally be getting a conviction for that little drugs...?
Firstly it's cocaine, not a little bit of weed; and secondly, and most importantly, he was caught trying to smuggle it into a gaol.anonymous_joe wrote:You think somebody would normally be getting a conviction for that little drugs...?