Justice denied

[odyssey06]

On what basis?

I don't follow, because he has not "suffered" in other ways, prior to his offense, he should be subject to the prison system for all its shortcomings that you reference? I don't think this reflects Timpson's views at all.

In fact, it seems to me to be entirely opposite. The risk of recidivism seems quite low in this case. I don't see how society would be safer with him behind bars? It seems a far greater risk to society is to place what was a seemingly functional member of society, into a system that can only disimprove his social functioning the longer he is in it.

There is no basis for your statement that "the risk of recidivism seems quite low".
Quite just as easily argue, if he got away with one such attack without any real consequence, it would be a signal to him he could get away with others.
The consequences should involved time behind bars.

 

[Itchy]

There is no basis for your statement that "the risk of recidivism seems quite low".
Quite just as easily argue, if he got away with one such attack without any real consequence, it would be a signal to him he could get away with others.
The consequences should involved time behind bars.

The basis is that he had held down a job that he performed well in. No discipline issues, professionally. Has not been in contact with the justice system prior to this. These are explicitly mitigating factors as outlined in the sentencing guidelines I posted earlier. There is also no evidence of any other character issues that would indicate violent tendencies, social disadvantage or health issues that indicate he would offend again. He also has a three year suspended sentence so he could not "get away with others". That said, the judge himself said the sentence was marginally under the threshold for a custodial.

There are consequences for putting people behind bars too. There could be a real risk that society is worse off if low risk individuals are exposed to such an environment for an extended period of time. This the view of the James Timpson, who does not subscribe to the punitive first principle.

*Just to clarify also, i'm not defending this individual. The circumstances and the reaction to this case are interesting to me, in the context of understanding how the system is working. More importantly, I'm interested in the victims who are no less deserving of justice, than the victim in this case, who are not clapped by the people who oversea the system who they themselves say failed and cannot generate the publicity or engagement from the people who are exercised about this case.

 

[odyssey06]

The basis is that he had held down a job that he performed well in. No discipline issues, professionally. Has not been in contact with the justice system prior to this. These are explicitly mitigating factors as outlined in the sentencing guidelines I posted earlier. There is also no evidence of any other character issues that would indicate violent tendencies, social disadvantage or health issues that indicate he would offend again. He also has a three year suspended sentence so he could not "get away with others". That said, the judge himself said the sentence was marginally under the threshold for a custodial.

There are consequences for putting people behind bars too. There could be a real risk that society is worse off if low risk individuals are exposed to such an environment for an extended period of time. This the view of the James Timpson, who does not subscribe to the punitive first principle.

*Just to clarify also, i'm not defending this individual. The circumstances and the reaction to this case are interesting to me, in the context of understanding how the system is working. More importantly, I'm interested in the victims who are no less deserving of justice, than the victim in this case, who are not clapped by the people who oversea the system who they themselves say failed and cannot generate the publicity or engagement from the people who are exercised about this case.

I don't think someone who exhibits this sort of use of violence meets your description above. The violent tendencies are demonstrated in the act.
This is someone who was trained in the use of violence and controlling aggression, who knew exactly the implications of each punch.
That is not someone low risk.

There's enough reports of people "getting away" with multiple suspended sentences, so yes, in Ireland in 2024 it could well mean that. It should not, but it does.

There is also the message it sends out to other such potential offenders.

 

[mathepac]

The basis is that he had held down a job that he performed well in. No discipline issues, professionally. Has not been in contact with the justice system prior to this. These are explicitly mitigating factors as outlined in the sentencing guidelines I posted earlier. There is also no evidence of any other character issues that would indicate violent tendencies, social disadvantage or health issues that indicate he would offend again. He also has a three year suspended sentence so he could not "get away with others". That said, the judge himself said the sentence was marginally under the threshold for a custodial.

As I see it the purpose of the justice system is to protect society from wrong-doers. The most immediate and effective manner of doing this is to jail those convicted of crimes that carry custodial sentences. All the other stuff about retraining, rehabilitation, and producing better citizens on release from jail play no part in protecting society in the short to medium term. Use victim impact statements at this stage as input to the judges' decisions to increase sentences above the minimum tariff.

I could easily be persuaded that all the foreplay with reports and references from every dog and divil with an invoice to submit or an axe to grind is a waste of taxpayers' money and prevents the justice system from fulfilling its purpose. Leave all the reports and references to be evaluated after imprisonment by what used to be the Probation & Welfare Service.

In the case in point, if the soldier's behaviour on the night could not have been predicted, how can anyone predict his behaviour in the future?

But please bear this in mind: If the justice system jails an intoxicated driver, potentially a sick person, is that person suffering from substance abuse syndrome being punished for having a mental illness?

 

[Purple]

The basis is that he had held down a job that he performed well in. No discipline issues, professionally. Has not been in contact with the justice system prior to this. These are explicitly mitigating factors as outlined in the sentencing guidelines I posted earlier. There is also no evidence of any other character issues that would indicate violent tendencies, social disadvantage or health issues that indicate he would offend again. He also has a three year suspended sentence so he could not "get away with others". That said, the judge himself said the sentence was marginally under the threshold for a custodial.

There are consequences for putting people behind bars too. There could be a real risk that society is worse off if low risk individuals are exposed to such an environment for an extended period of time. This the view of the James Timpson, who does not subscribe to the punitive first principle.

*Just to clarify also, i'm not defending this individual. The circumstances and the reaction to this case are interesting to me, in the context of understanding how the system is working. More importantly, I'm interested in the victims who are no less deserving of justice, than the victim in this case, who are not clapped by the people who oversea the system who they themselves say failed and cannot generate the publicity or engagement from the people who are exercised about this case.

In a general discussion about sentencing guidelines I agree with you but in this specific case the complete lack of remorse by the individual concerned leads me to believe that he was not actually acting out of character but rather he was demonstrating it and so he is deserving of a custodial sentence.

 

[Leo]

As I see it the purpose of the justice system is to protect society from wrong-doers. The most immediate and effective manner of doing this is to jail those convicted of crimes that carry custodial sentences. All the other stuff about retraining, rehabilitation, and producing better citizens on release from jail play no part in protecting society in the short to medium term. Use victim impact statements at this stage as input to the judges' decisions to increase sentences above the minimum tariff.

If the purpose was simply to protect society from wrong doers, then you're talking the death sentence for all such offences, after all, prison sentences are is in most cases temporary and short to medium term.

 

[mathepac]

then you're talking the death sentence for all such offences

You're talking something but I won't mention what it is. I never mentioned capital punishment and made it clear that I was referring only to custodial sentences.

What do you think the purpose of the justice system is?

 

[Purple]

What do you think the purpose of the justice system is?

It's to protect society, punish offenders and rehabilitate those who have been convicted of crimes.

 

[Leo]

You're talking something but I won't mention what it is. I never mentioned capital punishment and made it clear that I was referring only to custodial sentences.

Yeah, but custodial sentences without rehabilitation is essentially pointless right? That or they need to be jailed forever. Otherwise your proposal is only a very temporary protection for society, and likely worse in that incarceration without rehabilitation only creates worse offenders.

What do you think the purpose of the justice system is?

It's purpose is to achieve justice for all. Crime prevention is a significant portion of that, of which there are two components, deter people from committing crime, but also to intervene with offenders to reduce the likelihood or re-offending.

 

[Itchy]

Report by Peter Ward SC on the management of civil cases in the Defence Forces.

Of the over 7000 members of the Defence Forces, in June 2024 there were 69 civil cases (involving 68 personnel) with a further 8 identified totalling 76. These relate to assault (24), Road traffic offences (20), Misuse of drugs (including cases relating to the possession for sale or supply (9), Domestic incidents/breach of a barring order (6), Sexual assault/rape (5), Public order offences (2), Burglary (2), Money laundering (1).

As of 30 August 2024, 19 of these cases had been completed, i.e. the criminal process, including any appeal, had been completed. Seven cases were under appeal, and 43 cases were ongoing.

Of the 19 completed cases:
• 4 involved a custodial sentence (2 x road traffic offence, 1 x s. 3 assault, 1 x sexual assault [all discharged]
• 3 involved a conviction and fine (1 x public order/intoxication/trespass, 1 x misuseof drugs, 1 x road traffic offence) [all discharged]
• 3 involved a suspended sentence (2 x section 3 assault, 1 x publicorder/intoxication/trespass) [all discharged]
• 3 involved a conviction and driving disqualification [1 discharged]
• 3 cases were struck out
• 2 cases the Probation Act was applied
• 1 case was dismissed

All of these discharges have been made within existing procedures, there has been no change to primary/secondary legislation in response to Crotty or due to the conduct of the Ward report. And Ward's important conclusion:

162. From a review of the analysis of the cases provided by both the Department and the Defence Forces, there is no member of the Defence Forces convicted of rape or sexual assault in the civil courts who is still serving, apart from one soldier who has a conviction for sexual assault which is subject to an appeal which has not yet been heard.

What was a concern, rightly, was the management of personnel who have been charged or convicted of an offence but continue to serve.

150. The Defence Forces pointed out that DF Regulation A.11 (Leave) does not prescribe the granting of either special leave or local leave for personnel who are appearing before the courts. It does provide for special leave to be granted to a member who is called before a civil court as a witness. However, in a number of cases analysed by the Defence Forces, members were placed on local leave following conviction and prior to June 2024.

I suspect the situation was that the DF recognised the seriousness of the offences and had to take the risk by placing these people on leave. These cases are the 43 ongoing and are covered in Chapter 3.

So how was this quagmire managed when it arose? Well after the President, Taoiseach (zero tolerance for thee but not for me - Harris) and the Minister joined in the public pile on, he did concede the fact in the report:

The Tánaiste and the Department of Defence noted that there is no power of suspension of a member of the Defence Forces within the current legislation or regulations [for which they are responsible for].

However, MM did direct the Chief of Staff to take the buckshee approach and apply "local leave" arrangements. Impact?

The direction related to six cases. Of those six cases...two members were placed on local leave without prejudice.

So it seems the Defence Forces were managing as best they could, once the Minister was forced by necessity (i.e. public scrutiny) to provide some political cover for the Dept.'s neglect of the system of governance i.e. the regulations over the years, it was found that the DF were doing it off their own bat already. This neglect is deep rooted and goes back decades. You can get a flavour of the disagreement between the Dept. (who set the system of governance but are removed from its actual implementation) and the DF in Chapter 3.

It was noted by the Department of Defence that the Defence Forces are ‘siloed’ in terms of the command structure and in terms of legal advice being provided to the relevant decision makers

The Defence Forces did not agree with the characterisation of command authority and responsibility as “siloed”. They made the point that the legal advice provided...has not been reviewed by the Department of Defence and...has been accurate and consistent.

The Department was concerned that it has not been made clear how the reporting of these disciplinary matters applies internally.

It was acknowledged by the Defence Forces that, prior to June 2024, information on civil court cases was neither collated by DFHQ nor shared formally or requested by the Department of Defence.

The Tánaiste was concerned that careful and proactive management was not applied consistently across cases in which members were charged with serious criminal offences.

The Defence Forces do not accept that their officers were passive in the management of cases where members were charged with serious criminal offences.

And (shamefully) on and on.

The report clarifies the role of the LO in civilian court cases.
Role of the Liaison Officer

57. "Paragraph 57 [of Defence Forces Regulation A7] provides that the officer in attendance “is not required to disclose any information concerning the accused soldier unless required by the court to do so.” If the officer is so required, “he will furnish any information in his possession as to the soldier’s character and service, and full particulars of any previous conviction by a civil court, or by a court-martial” for certain specified offences.

196. While it is clear that the Liaison Officer appears in court in order to ensure that information in relation to the criminal proceedings is compiled and relayed back to the Commanding Officer, there is nonetheless a possible perception that the Liaison Officer appearing in uniform in court is there in a supportive role for the member charged.

While this was evident to anybody with half a brain, prior to and during, the reporting of the Crotty case led to the most disgusting personal abuse and vilification of Comdt. Togher (on SM and this site) who was doing nothing more than what he was required to do by regulation and the judge.

That’s very reasonable, but is that actually what he was there for.

According to the press reports

Commandant Paul Togher, gave evidence that Crotty was an “exemplary”, “courteous”, “professional” and “disciplined” officer.

Now if it actually says in his army file that Crotty is an exemplary soldier that’s fair enough, but it smells of Togher being in court to support his fellow soldier.

Along with some very good recommendations to update procedures, what is also included is that:

Rec 5: DF personal subject to an allegation of serious criminal misconduct "without any attendant or prospective criminal proceedings" will be subject to investigation
Rec 6: "responsibility shall lie with the General Officer Commanding to make a determination in all the circumstances as to whether an offence constitutes a serious criminal offence"
Rec 7: if the allegation is related to "rape, sexual assault and any assault involving an allegation of gender-based violence" you will be investigated "without further consideration of the underlying circumstances".

Seems allegations will be the new currency.

How soon are we likely to see the result of the appeal of the sentence?

The appeal will be heard in January.