# Judge revises Garda's prison sentence to 100% suspended



## DB74 (27 May 2011)

A garda was convicted of assault yesterday in Cork Circuit Court and sentenced to 18 months, 12 of which were suspended. According to RTE news last night, the garda in question broke down in tears and begged the judge not to send him back to prison because the 2 weeks he spent there on remand were terrible.

On application today, the judge revised the entire sentence to suspended BECAUSE he is a Garda

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0527/foleyd.html

Now maybe I should say nothing and leave these things to the experts but IMO this is an absolute disgrace. Why should gardai and/or prison officers not serve the same sentences as others?


----------



## ajapale (27 May 2011)

> Today, Mr Foley's Defence Counsel Donal O'Sullivan told the court that he had failed to mention yesterday a principal in law which accepted that some mitigation in sentencing is granted to former guards and prison officers because they were likely to suffer more in prison.


 
If, as councel for the defence states, there is a principal (sic) in law which accepts that there could some mitigation in sentencing former guards/prison officers then it appears to me that the actions of the Judge were correct.

I suppose that if people had a problem with this that they should lobby theire TD's to change the law to close off this avenue open to former guards and prision officers facing a jail sentence.


----------



## ashambles (27 May 2011)

In fairness the injured party didn't want the Garda to go to jail (clearly a lot more decent a human being than the Garda).

Also it seems the Garda will automatically lose his job for the conviction - getting through the police recruitment process is considered in Ireland a virtual lottery win, getting yourself turfed out after a couple years is quite a punishment. 

However I'd assumed yesterday's suspension of 12 months of the sentence was because he'd already adjusted for him being a garda. I'm surprised the judge needed it pointed out to him a day later by the forgetful defense that  they've remembered that jail is a tough place for an ex-garda to find himself.


----------



## Niall M (27 May 2011)

If he wasnt a guard i dont think this story would even make the paper or be reported on. Also from what i see, its the norm to give out suspended sentences to all forms these days. Ask the guy who got caught breaking into my fathers house, assaulted my father, got caught, got convicted, and now walks by the house every day on his suspended sentence.


----------



## Purple (27 May 2011)

I see no problem with this. The conviction will have a profound impact on his life, far more so than a person from a criminal background who was convicted of the same offence and had to serve 6 months.
The guy will lose his job and social standing. It will change the rest of his life.
The proverbial scumbag on welfare convicted of the same crime will do his 6 months (which probably means 2 months inside) protected by his friends and emerge out the other side to continue his life where he left off with no adverse impact on income or social standing.


----------



## z107 (27 May 2011)

Incidents such as this cast doubt on the whole judicial system.
How can someone judge others? If they are not all-seeing, then they should not judge others.

Nothing happens in isolation.


----------



## Yorrick (27 May 2011)

"Nothing happens in isolation"

Exactly. What is needed is consistency in sentencing. If every other person convicted of this type of assault got a sentence I would regard it diferently. They don't because every case is individual and judged on its merits. The facts are that in many cases where a person has no previous convictions they will escape a prison sentence. This man will rightly lose his job and all that goes with it. Prison is not the only punishment resulting from a conviction.


----------



## Leper (27 May 2011)

I think that there is a bit more involved here other than the suspended sentence. Didnt the defendant have to make a financial settlement to the victim?


----------



## thedaras (28 May 2011)

Purple said:


> I see no problem with this. The conviction will have a profound impact on his life, far more so than a person from a criminal background who was convicted of the same offence and had to serve 6 months.
> The guy will lose his job and social standing. It will change the rest of his life.
> The proverbial scumbag on welfare convicted of the same crime will do his 6 months (which probably means 2 months inside) protected by his friends and emerge out the other side to continue his life where he left off with no adverse impact on income or social standing.



I see where you are coming from Purple, however lets take this example;
A man on the street is charged and convicted of exactly the same offence,and lets say he gets the same sentence..do you honestly believe that he could/should/would get away with doing NO time?

Bearing in mind that the conviction will also have a profound impact on his life,more so than a person from a criminal background...He could also lose his job,and social standing..
Surely it would be just as difficult for him to serve time.

I understand that if the other inmates know that a prisoner was a member of the Gardai that the effect would be greater,but surely  he knew this himself and still went ahead and did the crime.

The biggest problem I have with this is the precedent that it sets,the example it sets and the power it gives,to do a crime that anyone else would do time for.

What is the logical conclusion to draw here? Where is the line drawn? 
what crime is worthy of a Guard doing time? 

It would appear that for an offence as serious as this one,that no time is required..so lets say anything below that is also exempt,but how much further do we go?

I dont agree that he should do no time,as far as Im aware there are "open" type prisons so perhaps this would have sufficed, justice should be done and more importantly be SEEN to be done..scary really that anyone and I mean anyone could possibly walk free after such an horrific attack on another person..even if the victim did not want him to go to jail,that is beside the point..the message this is sending out is very wrong..


----------



## Purple (28 May 2011)

There are plenty of examples on people not serving time for assault. If this was the first exception then I would agree with you but it isn’t.

There is the point that society gives members of the Gardai more power than normal citizens and so it is incumbent upon them to live and be judges by higher standards than the rest of us. In my opinion this is the only real argument for the person in this case spending time in prison.


----------



## starlite68 (28 May 2011)

Purple said:


> There are plenty of examples on people not serving time for assault. If this was the first exception then I would agree with you but it isn’t.
> 
> There is the point that society gives members of the Gardai have more power than normal citizens and so it is incumbent upon them to live and be judges by higher standards than the rest of us. In my opinion this is the only real argument for the person in this case spending time in prison.


yeah but it must be nice to work in a job where you can commit nearly any crime at will and know you wont be going inside no matter what!


----------



## Yorrick (28 May 2011)

"yeah but it must be nice to work in a job where you can commit nearly any crime at will and know you wont be going inside no matter what! "

What has being a politician got to do with this ??


----------



## BillK (28 May 2011)

Article in the press today here in England about a burglar who was sentenced to eight months in prison has been released after one month. The judges at the Court of Appeal held that locking him up deprived his five chidren of their right to a family life under ARTICLE 8 OF the Human Rights Act.

The lunatics really are running the asylum!


----------



## dewdrop (29 May 2011)

If Gardai are entitled to some mitigation due to what they suffer in prison surely the same could be said for rapists, child molesters who also get it hard in prison. Also it amazes me the learned judge was not aware of this situation.


----------



## thedaras (29 May 2011)

Is it not the situation where if a prostitute was raped that the perpetrator is dealt with MORE harshly.this is based on the blindingly obvious..

So I would have thought that those who are there to implement laws should in fact be dealt with MORE harshly..based on the obvious..


----------



## Complainer (29 May 2011)

BillK said:


> Article in the press today here in England about a burglar who was sentenced to eight months in prison has been released after one month. The judges at the Court of Appeal held that locking him up deprived his five chidren of their right to a family life under ARTICLE 8 OF the Human Rights Act.
> 
> The lunatics really are running the asylum!



Here's the full story;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-freed-to-protect-rights-of-his-children.html


----------



## thedaras (29 May 2011)

Not exactly comparing like with like is it..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-freed-to-protect-rights-of-his-children.html



> He and three other men raided the premises, taking only some chocolate, before he and one of his accomplices drove off in a transit van.


................

And this;

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0526/foleyd.html



> He said he was beaten as he got into a taxi and next remembered waking up in hospital with bleeding on the brain, a broken nose, broken bones in his face and a few broken teeth.
> An independent witness, Charles Wilkinson, described to the court how Mr Murphy had been 'knocked clean off his feet to the ground' after he was punched in the face.
> He said Mr Murphy was unconscious, while the Foleys walked away.


----------



## Bronte (31 May 2011)

ashambles said:


> In fairness the injured party didn't want the Garda to go to jail (clearly a lot more decent a human being than the Garda).
> 
> .


 
This aspect of the case made no sense and they only way it makes sense is because the victim was financially compensated.

In this case I see no need for a custodial sentence.  Garda has lost a lot more than his job.  As Purple said it has changed the path of his life forever.  That's a heck of a lot of punishment.


----------



## MrMan (31 May 2011)

thedaras said:


> Is it not the situation where if a prostitute was raped that the perpetrator is dealt with MORE harshly.this is based on the blindingly obvious..
> 
> So I would have thought that those who are there to implement laws should in fact be dealt with MORE harshly..based on the obvious..



Guards don't implement the law on their days off. Prostitutes don't have any less rights then anyone so why wouldn't they be treated as the victim in a rape?


----------



## truthseeker (31 May 2011)

thedaras said:


> Is it not the situation where if a prostitute was raped that the perpetrator is dealt with MORE harshly.this is based on the blindingly obvious..
> 
> So I would have thought that those who are there to implement laws should in fact be dealt with MORE harshly..based on the obvious..


 
Im not seeing the blindingly obvious here - why would or should the rapist of a prostitute be dealt with more harshly than the rapist of anyone else?


----------



## thedaras (31 May 2011)

MrMan said:


> Guards don't implement the law on their days off. Prostitutes don't have any less rights then anyone so why wouldn't they be treated as the victim in a rape?


Who said they shouldnt be treated as a victim? 
Who said they have any less rights?
Perhaps you would like to take the time to read what I posted,as your comment has absolutly no relevance to my post.
The perb of a rape of a prostitute is treated MORE HARSHLY,as a prostitute is selling their body,not less harshly because she is a prostitute.logical conclusion.a guard who does a crime in the full knowledge that he will be treated more harshly in prison,does so at his peril..well they did up to now..obviously this has changed and precedent has been set.


----------



## MrMan (1 Jun 2011)

thedaras said:


> Who said they shouldnt be treated as a victim?
> Who said they have any less rights?
> Perhaps you would like to take the time to read what I posted,as your comment has absolutly no relevance to my post.
> The perb of a rape of a prostitute is treated MORE HARSHLY,as a prostitute is selling their body,not less harshly because she is a prostitute.logical conclusion.a guard who does a crime in the full knowledge that he will be treated more harshly in prison,does so at his peril..well they did up to now..obviously this has changed and precedent has been set.



'Is it not the situation where if a prostitute was raped that the  perpetrator is dealt with MORE harshly.this is based on the blindingly  obvious..

So I would have thought that those who are there to implement laws  should in fact be dealt with MORE harshly..based on the obvious.. 		'

I guess the blindingly obvious is only so to some people. I'm not aware of the law deciding that the rape of a prostitute is more serious than the rape of anyone else.
I did take time to read your short post and it didn't make much sense to me, hence the confusion.


----------



## thedaras (1 Jun 2011)

MrMan said:


> 'Is it not the situation where if a prostitute was raped that the  perpetrator is dealt with MORE harshly.this is based on the blindingly  obvious..
> 
> So I would have thought that those who are there to implement laws  should in fact be dealt with MORE harshly..based on the obvious.. 		'
> 
> ...



You are not aware of the law deciding that the rape of a prostitute is more serious than the rape of anyone else because THERE IS NO SUCH LAW,nor did I say there was..

What I said was,  in the case of the rape of a prostitute,the criminal  is treated MORE harshly..I never said it was any more or less of a crime..yet I get the feeling that you are trying, incorrectly, to insinuate that  I am.

The point is that there are situations where a criminal is treated more harshly,and in my opinion,those who are there to uphold the law,who have trained in the area,who are aware that they will be treated badly in prison yet go ahead and commit the crime in the full knowledge of same,should in fact,be treated more harshly..not less!


----------



## MrMan (1 Jun 2011)

thedaras said:


> You are not aware of the law deciding that the rape of a prostitute is more serious than the rape of anyone else because THERE IS NO SUCH LAW,nor did I say there was..
> 
> What I said was,  in the case of the rape of a prostitute,the criminal  is treated MORE harshly..I never said it was any more or less of a crime..yet I get the feeling that you are trying, incorrectly, to insinuate that  I am.
> 
> The point is that there are situations where a criminal is treated more harshly,and in my opinion,those who are there to uphold the law,who have trained in the area,who are aware that they will be treated badly in prison yet go ahead and commit the crime in the full knowledge of same,should in fact,be treated more harshly..not less!



you said 'the perb of a rape of a prostitute is treated MORE HARSHLY', I'm not insinuating anything, just trying to figure out what you're getting at. They are your words, if the 'perb' is treated more harshly would that not infer that you mean that the courts pass tougher sentences on such people?


----------



## thedaras (1 Jun 2011)

MrMan 





> you said 'the perb of a rape of a prostitute is treated MORE HARSHLY', I'm not insinuating anything, just trying to figure out what you're getting at. They are your words, if the 'perb' is treated more harshly would that not infer that you mean that the courts pass tougher sentences on such people?


Yes,and that is what I said however I have no idea how you could infer the following,
MrMan 





> Prostitutes don't have any less rights then anyone so why wouldn't they be treated as the victim in a rape?


No one said they shouldn't be treated as a victim!Quite the opposite!
and two; 

MrMan





> I'm not aware of the law deciding that the rape of a prostitute is more serious than the rape of anyone else.
> .


Once again I never said there was a law making the rape of prostitutes more serious,what I said was the criminal was treated more harshly.For blindingly obvious reasons,which are blindingly not obvious to some ..
You also say you are trying to "figure out what I am getting at"..and I still have no idea what your inference is..


----------



## MrMan (2 Jun 2011)

thedaras you seem to be going around in circles on this one and it's ok to be wrong sometimes. You again reiterate that there is no law that states that the rape of a prosititute is more serious than the rape of anyone else yet you continue to say that it is treated more harshly. More harshly by who? criminals? judges? public? Which obvious one is it? If it is judges then that goes against your intitial statement.
This has dragged on and it generally drags on on AAM when someone is trying to avoid any flaw in their argument.


----------



## Leo (2 Jun 2011)

Thread derailed - closed.


----------

