Refused right to appeal

RainyDay said:
Is this belief based on any hard information?
Click to expand...
Actually no, a little voice in my head suggested it to me. I since checked it on the web and it seems yourself and ClubMan are correct.

IMHO the mandatory registering of mobile phones is another regrettable step down the road to a Big Brother state.
 
A spokesman on the radio (from a telecommunications company) said today that if they bring in mandatory registering of RTG phones it will result in people buying sim cards from other European countries to replace their own so it will defeat the purpose?
 
At the moment it is too easy to register a phone with false details (to obtain free credit etc) as no check of the details is ever made.
 
ClubMan said:
If/when they bring in legislation presumably they can. Not sure how they will deal with retrospective registration though.
Click to expand...

From yesterday's (24/07/07) Irish Times:

'Government plans to introduce a register of all mobile phones are likely to only relate to new "pay-as-you-go" handsets, meaning thousands of these phones already in circulation will not be affected.

The Minister of State responsible for drugs strategy, Pat Carey TD, revealed yesterday that he did not think it would be feasible to "backdate" the measure to include older phones.'

Which means the whole thing is completely pointless - the number of such phones is actually more in the hundreds of thousands - not thousands. And as a letter writer to the IT points out today, many of the owners of such phones are children, who would often have no means of proving their identity or address - they don't pay utility bills, they don't have driving licences, etc. Are they to be barred from owning RTG phones in future?

The criminals will find it trivial to circumvent this. It will only cause hassle for customers and extra costs for the phone companies, which no doubt they will find ways of passing on to us.
 
Yeah - seems like a stupid kneejerk reaction to a single (?) recent court case...
 
I know I'm picking up on a narrow idea, but did anyone notice on Monday how the verdict on the woman who tried set fire to her house to kill her husband and kids was let off with 5 years suspended sentence? I know it's all love and hugs, in the papers anyway, for her and her family, but can you imagine if it was Joe Murphy in some suburb? I do have an enduring feeling that the law is set, and the media, to play to common public perceptions.
 
Remember Norma Cotter of Midleton in Cork? In 1995 she came home drunk, took exception to her husband objecting to her puking in their bedroom, and after sleeping off the drink went back to the bedroom with her husband's shotgun and killed him as he slept. Norma served three years for manslaughter. One of the reasons the judge gave for the light sentence was that she had to care for her children.

Can you imagine the outrage if it had been Norma's husband who shot her and he got off that lightly?
 
Gonk

I think there may have been a bit more to the Nora Cotter case than your brief outline.

Almo,

None of us know all the facts but there was a clear inference of mental illness unlike in the O'Reilly case.

That said I know where you are both coming from. Maybe its poor media reporting in many of these cases( nothing the papers like than a good story..never let the facts get in the way of a bit of drama) but in fairness there have been cases of men committing acts of violence and getting very low and even suspended sentences (eg some rape cases) so if you think theres a bias one way or other you can always find cases to back up your argument .

My biggest worry is that it gives John Waters yet another reason to remind us that there was never an unmarried father in Ireland before him. If only he'd stick to the song writing instead
 
Madangan said:
Gonk

I think there may have been a bit more to the Nora Cotter case than your brief outline.
Click to expand...

It was, in my view, a brief but fair summary, but if you want more detail you could start with these reports on the trial and sentencing. Feel free to point out any material inaccuracies or omissions in my original post.

[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]

I stand over my opinion that there is no way a husband who killed his wife in similar circumstances would have got away with a manslaughter conviction, still less a 3 year sentence. If one did, there would - rightly -be absolute uproar.
 
What about that woman in Knocklyon in Dublin who used a hammer and a knife to kill her husband in his sleep and got a few years for manslaughter?
If a man did that to his wife would he get the same? I don't think so.
 
Purple said:
What about that woman in Knocklyon in Dublin who used a hammer and a knife to kill her husband in his sleep and got a few years for manslaughter?
If a man did that to his wife would he get the same? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

In that case, Dolores O'Neill claimed she had been the victim of sustained domestic violence over a long period. In fact, the prosecution had available to it a diary belonging to the victim detailing the prolonged attacks he had been subjected to by his wife. The truth was, far from being a battered wife, she was the one doing the battering. For reasons best known to the DPP, the diary was not entered into evidence . . .
 
Women do get sentenced to long sentences too. E.g Jacqui Noble currently in gaol for killing husband notwithstanding that he was an extremely violent man.

The truth is juries and judges get to hear far more of the facts(and the circumstances surrounding them) than ever get reported in the Media so it is very hard for any of us to judge any particular case.

I am left as mystified as anyone by sentencing policy but I think it is too easy and trite to say it is an anti male pro female bias in any particular case. For the record while I am no "string em up" or "lock em up and throw away the key" advocate neither am I a "bleedin heart liberal" but in cases of violence I am often astounded at the short sentences dished out to both men and women at times.
 

He may have been a violent man, but the penalty for domestic violence is not summary execution.

In the Dolores O'Neill case, the jury manifestly did not get to hear the full facts. I think if they knew of the victim's diary it is very likely they would have brought in a murder conviction.
 

Gonk,

Never suggested summary execution!!!!! (Or indeed that she should not have been sentenced to a long spell in gaol... merely pointing out that women get convicted and sentenced to lenghty sentences too).
I hope you are not quoting the facts from the O'Neill case(which I do not know so will not comment on) as selectively as you quoted from my post! I made it quite clear that I do not like or understand the shortness of sentences in cases of violence. So please if you are going to quote from other peoples post do same fairly and in context.


As to why in some cases certain evidence is not put to a jury it can be as much a mystery to me as you... I guess its about trying to get a fair trial and balancing the right of any accused to be presumed innocent with those of the victim and sometimes the system gets it wrong..the innocent get convicted the guilty can walk free.

My point in joining this thread was that sometimes its very easy to assume that a bias exists when in fact decisions are made for very different reasons.
 
Last edited:

I did not intend to imply you personally felt the victims in any of these cases "had it coming" and I apologise if that's how you intrepreted my post. I would, however, certainly argue that one could very reasonably get the impression that's how the courts see it when one looks at how they treat such cases.

The point is that a common thread in these three cases was the justification offered for killing a husband/partner was the alleged violence shown to the killer by the deceased. Ironically, the accused who came off worst was the only one who had genuinely been herself the victim of domestic violence. The other two were fabricating allegations against their victims.

The Norma Cotter case in particular was a travesty of justice.

Madangan said:
My point in joining this thread was that sometimes its very easy to assume that a bias exists when in fact decisions are made for very different reasons.
Click to expand...

Nobody could be in any doubt that a husband who killed his wife in the circumstances in which Norma Cotter killed her husband would have been treated much more severely by the courts. To my mind, that is prima facie bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register