GV Wright, or, I f*cking KNEW it...

Sparks

Let's review, shall we?
50 mph in a 30 mph zone. Nearly twice the legal blood alcohol limit. Mounts a pavement, hits a woman, breaks her leg in four places. Last I heard, they didn't know if she'd ever walk properly again. Then tries to flee the scene and has to be restrained by passers-by.

What's the penalty?
900 euro, two years suspension from driving.
This to a guy who earns over a hundred grand a year and has a driver paid for by the state.

I ****ing KNEW he'd get off. Honest country my ****ing eyeball.
And you lot wonder why I'm fatalistic about this country?
:rolleyes:
Lousy bastards the lot of them.

mike65

Did'nt hear any mention of points either...A ban was the least plus if I were the woman I'd sue him through the civil courts. Except for the cost involved of course...:rolleyes:

He's not in government so he dont have a /car/driver.

Mike.

star gazer

How can it just be a charge of drink driving, isn't there anything dangerous about hitting someone?

Sparks

Originally posted by star gazer
How can it just be a charge of drink driving, isn't there anything dangerous about hitting someone?

Well, you have to remember, he's a TD. The rules apparently don't apply to them. :rolleyes:

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks

I ****ing KNEW he'd get off. Honest country my ****ing eyeball.
And you lot wonder why I'm fatalistic about this country?
:rolleyes:
Lousy bastards the lot of them.

GV Wrieght was charged, went before the courts and was setenced.

As a democrat - I have respect for the courts service in this country.

Well, you have to remember, he's a TD. The rules apparently don't apply to them.

Check the constitution - Could you show where this pops up?

I feel that Mr. Wrieght did wrong, he apologised and was subject to due process.

Villain

Originally posted by Cork

I feel that Mr. Wrieght did wrong, he apologised and was subject to due process.

What the Fuc k???

Oh aplogised yippeee.

He was only convicted of drink driving, not of speeding or dangerous driving. He got off and Cork if you think otherwise your not living in a real world if that was me I'd probably be sitting in the Joy now.

He knocked someonedown did you forget that????

Get real man

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
GV Wrieght was charged, went before the courts and was setenced.
As a democrat - I have respect for the courts service in this country.

He mounted a pavement at twice the speed limit, with a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit, and struck a woman. Do you know how lucky she was to live? Hit a pedestrian at 30 mph and 95% of the time you kill them. She survived with only a shattered leg. Now at this point, he'd committed a heinous act, but it was down to negligence rather than malice.
But then he tried to flee the scene and had to be restrained.
He's a TD. He's meant to know the law, yet he tried to flee the scene of an accident without calling for help, and would have left a seriously injured woman to bleed to death on the ground had he not been stopped.
Any court that doesn't recognise that and punish him appropriately doesn't deserve any respect from any sane and honest human.

I feel that Mr. Wrieght did wrong, he apologised and was subject to due process.

Bollocks. He did not apologise. Ever. He never spoke to the woman after the accident, and even his "apology" was the phrase "I reget the accident".
**** that.
It wasn't an accident that he tried to flee the scene, he didn't apologise to the woman, and the court's verdict was not just, and the Gardai and the DPP deserve castigation for not bringing further charges.
Why the **** should anyone obey the rules while driving now? And why, if there is another such incident, should we go to the gardai? We won't get justice, so we may as well take out vengeance on the person involved.
So help me, if that woman was a relative of mine, I'd be waiting by Wright's door tomorrow morning with a sledgehammer to break his ****ing legs the way he broke hers.

Cork

What are ye purposing pitch fork brigades, lynch mobs and bar stool/armchair judges?


He did wrong , was charged & was sentenced.

I'd be waiting by Wright's door tomorrow morning with a sledgehammer to break his ****ing legs the way he broke

Our courts - deal with many drink related cases every week.

Many of the cases they deal with don't make the Joe Duffy Radio Show or the gutter press.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
I ****ing KNEW he'd get off. Honest country my ****ing eyeball.
And you lot wonder why I'm fatalistic about this country?
:rolleyes:
Lousy bastards the lot of them.

Well, given that you have recently said that were you in their position, you would be just as corrupt, Im at a loss to see what your complaint is.....unless you somehow feel that you deserve a better breed of politician than you would make yourself.

As for Cork's "due process" post...that doesn't even bear dignifying with a response in my opinion.

jc

Villain

Originally posted by bonkey

p.s. at 30 mph its 50% fatal, not 95%.

What about at 50mph??

gurramok

Not surprised he got away with it.

This case gives the real impression that once you have power/money you can get away with it.
Jailing protesters for a month yet knocking someone down gets you a small fine.
Injuring someone is a less serious offence now than protesting.

Thats the message our wonderful judicial system sends out.

Can you trust the gardai now to have brought a more serious and appropriate charge ?

Strange enough that the case was brought before the court so fast and dealt with. Usually when a high profile figure is involved, it takes much longer.

Did he not get a conviction on his record for this ?? (assume no if I read it right)

Most people would lose their job/reputation for drink driving but alas he is still a TD.

Guess the govt hope the public will forget this 'little incident' when the election comes in a few years time.

Where is the supposed opposition publicly blasting his stay in the dail ?
Its no wonder the public would not trust most TD's.

Maybe the tribunal will get him on the rezoning scandal...fingers crossed.

As a democrat - I have respect for the courts service in this country

Open your eyes, many democrats are losing faith fast for the courts service.
I have no faith, but what i do have faith is that if it was me drink driving in a similar incident, I would be doing lots of hard time in the joy, with no livliehood through loss of job and also broke.

P.S. Cork, are you a troll??

Cork

Not surprised he got away with it.

GV Wright, has been fined €900 and disqualified from driving for two years at Dublin District Court.

He went before the courts and was sentenced.

Jailing protesters for a month yet knocking someone down gets you a small fine.

Were some bin protesters jailed for not complying with a High Court injunction?

Sentencing in Ireland is a metter for our courts.

many democrats are losing faith fast for the courts service

How?

We have basically the same legal system since the 1937 constitution.

Are we to either support or reject our courts system on our perceived version of the "right verdict"?

gandalf

Utterly Pathetic is the only response I have to this.

If this man had any sense of public duty he would has resigned from his public office. Obviously given his credentials as a politician who accepted "donations" I am really not surprised.

I wonder would any other citizen of this country with no connections get the same treatment if they knocked someone down while drunk and speeding in an urban area. I think the answer is no. They would be doing time fair and simple.

Cork I am coming to the conclusion that you are a TROLL. Just don't make me decide that you are ok!

Gandalf.

Cork

given his credentials as a politician who accepted "donations" I am really not surprised.

Politicians accepting donations is not a crime.

I think tribunerals should hear the full evidence before reaching conclusions.

Courts have drink related cases everyday. Many of which don't make the TV news or tabloid press.

We are all equal before the law. The same law applies to us all. I personally believe there is one legal system in this country. A written constitution gaurentees us of this.

Now,gandalf - a more interesting topic is sentencing consistancy in our legal system. This is important. Judges should be made to do some form of "Continued Professional Education" .

They should also be made to meet & discuss developments effecting the administration of the law.

There has been some sentences that have been handed down in this country that seemed on the "light side".

This is why - it is necessary for judges to be kept up to date with recent developments and practices in relation to the law.

But - I am personally aganist minimum sentences inserted into law. This removes discression in sentencing from the courts.


Gandalf, this is my tuppence worth. I have made, what I believe to be fair comment on this topic. I really have nothing more to add.

Originally posted by gandalf
Utterly Pathetic is the only response I have to this.

If this man had any sense of public duty he would has resigned from his public office. Obviously given his credentials as a politician who accepted "donations" I am really not surprised.

I wonder would any other citizen of this country with no connections get the same treatment if they knocked someone down while drunk and speeding in an urban area. I think the answer is no. They would be doing time fair and simple.

while I agree with you one hundred percent that Wright should have resigned over this matter because of the hypocrisy in that he is a legislator etc, I'm not so sure that he got special treatment.
I remember hearing a Barrister speaking on the Joe Duffy Show during the week that this all happened.
He said that it was normal in a case such as this for the prosecution to procede with just one case and that this would usually be the minor of the two cases when the defendent has a clean record , is of good character and has no previous convictions etc.
He expected the most severe penalty would be a suspended sentence of probably less than six months.
And he was giving that opinion in respect of anyone who had done what Wright did who was never in trouble with the law before.
Thats my best recollection and I remember writing it here before and certainly it should be in an audio file on RTÉ somewhere.

I also recall the poor misfortunate victim of all this confirming that she was going to proceed with a private suit and no doubt she will, and hopefully, get all she deserves from it.

mm

Villain

Cork, your trying to defend the indefendable.

Cases of drink driving do appear before the court everyday your right there, but thats about all your right about.

Mr Wright knocked a woman down and injured her while drunk and breaking the speed limit, and then tried to leave the scene, now thats the facts! and somehow I don't think you see cases of that nature everyday in Court.

This man was elected by the people of his area to represent them in our soceity, and in my mind by doing what he did he has no right to hold onto that position any longer.

Cork, I really find your defence in this case to laughable, Wright got away easy. I don't know what your connection with FF is but if you can't see past that to accept that the Justice system let Wright off lightly your a fool.

This is a joke, Ireland really has become a country of corruption.

I can go out and knock someone down while breaking the speed limit and drunk and get away with a fine and a ban for 2 years which means after 1 year I will get my licence back.

But if I was to breach a court injunction and stop a few bin lorries I will do time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That really is a very sad joke, and makes me ashamed to be an Irish person.

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
One warning Sparks. I dont care how incensed you are.

Point noted, post edited, apologies for those two specific words proferred to all.

Originally posted by Cork
GV Wright, has been fined €900 and disqualified from driving for two years at Dublin District Court.
He went before the courts and was sentenced.

No, he went before the courts and got off. What if I decide tonight to go to Wright's home, wait till he emerges and run him down in my car while drunk? Will I too face a 900 euro fine and a 2 year dirving ban? I've got a cleaner record than he does, after all.

Sentencing in Ireland is a metter for our courts.

And when those courts fail us? What then cork?

Are we to either support or reject our courts system on our perceived version of the "right verdict"?

Yes.

Politicians accepting donations is not a crime.

Actually, even accepting bona fide donations is a crime if the amount is too high. However, these were not bona fide donations, they were bribes. You don't hand over honest donations wrapped in a newspaper in the Dail Bar.

Courts have drink related cases everyday. Many of which don't make the TV news or tabloid press.

Not many of which involve TDs whose professional careers have been supporting crackdowns on drink driving.

We are all equal before the law. The same law applies to us all.

Bollocks it does. And this case proves it.
Which leaves us to try to figure out what we do from here.
Which I personally find to be a very worrying situation and one that angers me greatly.

I personally believe there is one legal system in this country. A written constitution gaurentees us of this.

'fraid not Cork, not when that court system has declared that arbitarily selected sections of that constitution can be designated to be "aspirational in nature" and thus ignored for expediency.

Now,gandalf - a more interesting topic is sentencing consistancy in our legal system. This is important. Judges should be made to do some form of "Continued Professional Education" .

But - I am personally aganist minimum sentences inserted into law. This removes discression in sentencing from the courts.

Yesterdays verdict shows that that discresion is being abused and needs to be sharply curtailed or removed alltogether.

Gandalf, this is my tuppence worth. I have made, what I believe to be fair comment on this topic. I really have nothing more to add.

If that's what you believe is fair comment Cork, I'd be banned for telling you what I consider to be a fair opinion of your analytical skill.

Originally posted by Man
I'm not so sure that he got special treatment.
I remember hearing a Barrister speaking on the Joe Duffy Show during the week that this all happened.
He said that it was normal in a case such as this for the prosecution to procede with just one case and that this would usually be the minor of the two cases when the defendent has a clean record , is of good character and has no previous convictions etc.
He expected the most severe penalty would be a suspended sentence of probably less than six months.
And he was giving that opinion in respect of anyone who had done what Wright did who was never in trouble with the law before.

Which sound fine and dandy Man, but for two things:
1) We know Wright took bribes, so his character was questionable long before the incident - it wasn't that he was innocent, just that he hadn't been caught;
2) Wright's character was obviously not good, not so much because of the incredibly bad judgement he showed by driving while drunk, or because of the accident itself, but because of what he did after the accident. This guy stopped his car, got out, saw what he'd done and then decided to get back in his car and drive away without calling for help.
And that was the heinous part of the act - not the accident itself, which I'm happy to consider to be unmalicious, but his decision to let a severly injured woman die on the street after he'd run her down - which she would have, had it not been for the passers-by who restrained him and saved her life by calling for help.
For that alone, I'd expect him to serve jail time.
As for his failure to meet with or apologise to her, even by proxy, that just confirms my opinion of this man's "character".

Originally posted by Sparks

Which sound fine and dandy Man, but for two things:
1) We know Wright took bribes, so his character was questionable long before the incident - it wasn't that he was innocent, just that he hadn't been caught;

That has been proven by a court of law has it? and is on his record where exactly?
My point being, that he was treated the same as anybody else for a first time offence.

2) Wright's character was obviously not good, not so much because of the incredibly bad judgement he showed by driving while drunk, or because of the accident itself, but because of what he did after the accident. This guy stopped his car, got out, saw what he'd done and then decided to get back in his car and drive away without calling for help.

That has no impact whatsoever on, his clean criminal record and character.
Un palletable as it may seem to you, there are no doubt many in his constiuency who would tend towards giving him some benefit of the doubt in terms of his character.
Indeed have a read of this post by Bard on the subject for a poignant example of this.

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
That has been proven by a court of law has it? and is on his record where exactly?
My point being, that he was treated the same as anybody else for a first time offence.

So if I go run him down now while pissed, I'd get the same treatment?

That has no impact whatsoever on, his clean criminal record and character.

Wrong.
Following the Bard's logic, it would be totally out of character for me to do anything illegal or malicious. However, were I to get drunk or just incenced and take a sledgehammer to someone's head and afterwards express regret (remember, he hasn't apologised to her, he's just said he regrets the incident) - my prior criminal record or lack thereof, would not keep me out of jail.
See, the actual accident, I could forgive. It was a total lack of judgement, but I don't doubt that there was no intended malice. Ban him from driving for a few years and fine him heavily, on top of paying for her medical bills, which he hasn't offered to do, and that would be sufficent punishment in my view.

It's his attempt to leave her for dead by the side of the road that makes me want to see him serve a jail sentence. And it's not because he's a TD, I'd want anyone that did that to serve time for it, if not actually be charged with some form of attempted homicide.
Face it, if there hadn't been people there at the time, she'd have died from blood loss and shock, and he'd probably have gotten away with it.

Un palletable as it may seem to you, there are no doubt many in his constiuency who would tend towards giving him some benefit of the doubt in terms of his character.

There are people who voted for Martin Ferris. It doesn't mean that he ought to be considered a good man, or given any benefit of any doubt.

RainyDay

I'd like to see some comparison of GV's treatment to that of non-TD's convicted of similar offences before jumping to conclusions. Yes, of course, part of me would like to see him locked up & the key thrown away, but let's see how others were treated before we go down the part of conspiracy theories.

Gordon

Maybe the guy knew he could settle out of court so he could pay the lady off on the quiet.

Has anyone got any actual cases of non-TD's caught in a similar circumstance (though warped it is) with a similar or more aggressive reaction from the courts.

ps Cork you must be a troll!

Sparks

Has anyone got any actual cases of non-TD's caught in a similar circumstance (though warped it is) with a similar or more aggressive reaction from the courts.

http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/driving-drink.htm

Points out that the two year ban was in fact the minimum sentence permissible for the circumstances.

As to prior examples of TDs running down people while drunk and then trying to flee the scene, I (oddly enough), can't find any examples of them.
Lawlor was arrested for drink driving in 2000 and was fined 116 punts and given a year's ban from driving. But he didn't actually hit anyone. In 1989, Sean McCarthy was arrested, but claimed dail priviledge and wasn't prosecuted.

But so far I've found no other case which matches Wrights. Anyone out there got better access to a legal library, sing out...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
So if I go run him down now while pissed, I'd get the same treatment?

No, because your obvious anger and frustration at the man, expressed in a public place, plus the fact that you've just actually verbalised the notion of running him over would give rise to grounds of it being premeditated as opposed to an accident.

However, if you - as a good, upstanding citizen in the eyes of the law did what he did and expressed the same remorse, there seems to be an indication that you would indeed get the same treatment.

Note - "in the eyes of the law" is the key phrase here. I have always opposed the usage of tribunals, because nothing that they find out is admissable as evidence in a court of law in any way. Wright could have admitted to being a mastermind in human slavery to the tribunal, and as far as this sentencing was concerned, it would have to be disregarded. Indeed, were the judge to show any indication that he was taking tribunal-revealed information into account, Wright could - in all likelihood - have the entire sentence quashed.

However, were I to get drunk or just incenced and take a sledgehammer to someone's head and afterwards express regret (remember, he hasn't apologised to her, he's just said he regrets the incident) - my prior criminal record or lack thereof, would not keep me out of jail.

This seems to be another standalone statement of how you know our system works, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Not only that, but lets compare like with like. You can't accidentally lose control of a sledgehammer while drunk and accidentally hit someone. Well - ok - I concede its theoretically possible, but massively improbable. If you were drunk, driving, lost control and hit someone - seriously, but not fatally, injuring them - then tried to flee the scene...and when it came to court argued that you regretted the incident and assured the judge it owuldn't happen again....do you honestly believe you would be sent to jail? If you do, can you find a single legal opinion to back your layman's understanding of the courts?

Not only that, but you repeatedly say that all Wright has ever done by way of an apology is say that he regretted the incident. Have you studied a transcript of the court preceedings, or are you just making more assumptions or working from hearsay?

See, the actual accident, I could forgive. It was a total lack of judgement, but I don't doubt that there was no intended malice. Ban him from driving for a few years and fine him heavily, on top of paying for her medical bills, which he hasn't offered to do, and that would be sufficent punishment in my view.

And have you checked that our courts of law have the ability to impose such a sentence for the crime comitted?

It's his attempt to leave her for dead by the side of the road that makes me want to see him serve a jail sentence.

And I agree fully. However, thats not the issue. The issue is whether or not he was treated specially by the courts because he is a TD. If "upstanding in the eyes of the law" Joe Soap, comitting the same crime, receives the same punishment, then I'll agree with you 100% while you rail against the inherent stupidity of sentencing in this country. However, the more this is discussed, the more it seems that Mr. Wright was treated correctly by the law - that he did not receive favourable treatment, but rather was treated like anyone else in that position would have been.

And it's not because he's a TD, I'd want anyone that did that to serve time for it,

Then complain about the stupidity of how many of our punishments do not fit the crime...not that Wright got special treatment.

There are people who voted for Martin Ferris. It doesn't mean that he ought to be considered a good man, or given any benefit of any doubt.

And here was me thinking you would actually want our legal system to work the say its supposed to. I never saw that I'd see you - one of the most vehement opposers of corruption - advocating a legal system that can be influenced by anything which is not legally admissable. What you're asking for, Sparks, is a corrupt legal system to give you justice in this one case - a system that can take non-legally-admissable evidence into account. Think about the ramifications of that....

jc

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
]No, because your obvious anger and frustration at the man, expressed in a public place, plus the fact that you've just actually verbalised the notion of running him over would give rise to grounds of it being premeditated as opposed to an accident.

Assuming you could prove that I (the person posting this comment) is actually who you think I am. (Not, you understand, that I've ever pursued anonmity, but you just don't know for sure, do you?).
But, let's leave that aside for a moment and consider the act in and of itself.
What would be so different between me running him down while drunk and thus apparently not in full control of my actions; and him realising he'd run someone down and then trying to flee without calling for help?

However, if you - as a good, upstanding citizen in the eyes of the law did what he did and expressed the same remorse, there seems to be an indication that you would indeed get the same treatment.

That I'd receive the same minimum sentence for the minor offence committed (which is rather like charging a mugger who broke his victim's arm while stealing her purse with a charge of littering for dropping that purse after the mugging) is by no means sure, especially if I'd not even tried to personally apologise to the woman.

Note - "in the eyes of the law" is the key phrase here. I have always opposed the usage of tribunals, because nothing that they find out is admissable as evidence in a court of law in any way. Wright could have admitted to being a mastermind in human slavery to the tribunal, and as far as this sentencing was concerned, it would have to be disregarded. Indeed, were the judge to show any indication that he was taking tribunal-revealed information into account, Wright could - in all likelihood - have the entire sentence quashed.

Which serves more as a condemnation of the legal system than any form of defence for Wright.

Not only that, but lets compare like with like. You can't accidentally lose control of a sledgehammer while drunk and accidentally hit someone.

STOP.
Hold up there and remember something I've already said - I accept that there was no malice in the accident (though there was serious negligence).
It's his actions after the accident that are reprehensible.
And it's not massivly improbably to harm someone with a sledgehammer accidentally, it happens all the time. Just peruse the accident logs of any building site.

If you were drunk, driving, lost control and hit someone - seriously, but not fatally, injuring them - then tried to flee the scene...and when it came to court argued that you regretted the incident and assured the judge it owuldn't happen again....do you honestly believe you would be sent to jail?

Not anymore. But till yesterday, yes, I did. Not for drink driving, but for fleeing the scene.

If you do, can you find a single legal opinion to back your layman's understanding of the courts?

A legal opinion? Nope. Just the law as it was explained to me and on which I was questioned when I got my driving licence:

Accidents
Stop immediately, remain at the scene of the accident for a reasonable period of time and give your name, address (and that of the owner of the vehicle if it does not belong to you), vehicle registration number and insurance details to the other driver.

In cases of injury, you are obliged to inform the Gardaí.

Or to be more precise and to quote the Road Traffic Act of 1961:

53.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and—
( a ) in case the contravention causes death or serious bodily harm to another person, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years or, at the discretion of the court, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to both such penal servitude and such fine and
( b ) in any other case, he shall be liable on such conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

106.—(1) Where injury is caused to person or property in a public place and a vehicle is involved in the occurrence of the jury (whether the use of the vehicle was or was not the cause of the injury), the following provisions shall have effect:
( a ) if the vehicle is not stationary after the occurrence, the driver of the vehicle shall stop the vehicle;
( b ) the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle shall keep the vehicle at or near the place of the occurrence for a period which is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of this section;
( c ) the driver of the vehicle or, if he is killed or incapacitated, the person then in charge of the vehicle shall give on demand the appropriate information to a member of the Garda Síochána or, if no such member is present, to one person entitled under this section to demand such information;
( d ) if a member of the Garda Síochána is not present at the occurrence and either—
(i) there is no person entitled under this section to demand the information, or
(ii) the case is one in which, as respects the sole person entitled under this section to demand the appropriate information or each of the persons so entitled, it is reasonably clear that he could not be expected to make a demand because of injury, illness, age or other disability,
the driver of the vehicle or, if he is killed or incapacitated, the person then in charge of the vehicle shall report the occurrence as soon as possible to a member of the Garda Síochána and, if necessary, shall go for that purpose to the nearest convenient Garda Síochána station and also shall give on demand the appropriate information to the member.

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction—
( a ) in a case in which injury is caused to person, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment, and
( b ) in any other case, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

(Note that those penalties have been updated since 1961...)

Not only that, but you repeatedly say that all Wright has ever done by way of an apology is say that he regretted the incident. Have you studied a transcript of the court preceedings, or are you just making more assumptions or working from hearsay?

No, I'm going by the public statements the man has made and the public statements that she herself has made. The court transcripts aren't publicly available yet, at least not online. But all the public domain information says consistently that he has not apologised to her, but has apologised to his party.
Wonderful....

And have you checked that our courts of law have the ability to impose such a sentence for the crime comitted?

Nope, it just strikes me as being the right thing to do...

And I agree fully. However, thats not the issue. The issue is whether or not he was treated specially by the courts because he is a TD. If "upstanding in the eyes of the law" Joe Soap, comitting the same crime, receives the same punishment, then I'll agree with you 100% while you rail against the inherent stupidity of sentencing in this country. However, the more this is discussed, the more it seems that Mr. Wright was treated correctly by the law - that he did not receive favourable treatment, but rather was treated like anyone else in that position would have been.

Except that Joe Soap would have to be charged with the lesser offence of drink driving. Remember, Wright wasn't even charged with fleeing the scene.

And here was me thinking you would actually want our legal system to work the say its supposed to. I never saw that I'd see you - one of the most vehement opposers of corruption - advocating a legal system that can be influenced by anything which is not legally admissable. What you're asking for, Sparks, is a corrupt legal system to give you justice in this one case - a system that can take non-legally-admissable evidence into account. Think about the ramifications of that....

Bonkey, think on the ramifications of my reaction. I'm a fairly intelligent and moderate person who has always believed in the rule of law. And this case has me advocating ignoring the legal system because of it's injustice.
Are you thinking I'm alone in this?
Are you thinking that this won't lead to anything further?
Because you'd be wrong on both counts.

star gazer

originally posted by Cork
Check the constitution - Could you show where this pops up?

Td's cannot be stopped coming to or from Dáil Éireann which means they can be above the law in that definition of circumstnaces.

It would seem unbelievable that Wright wouldn't apologise to the woman. Of course this would have a bearing on any possible civil action as an admission of guilt, but as a public representative he surely has a duty to his constituents to be up front. To do otherwise would be a reflection of himself and the party he is associated with.

Originally posted by Sparks

But, let's leave that aside for a moment and consider the act in and of itself.
What would be so different between me running him down while drunk and thus apparently not in full control of my actions; and him realising he'd run someone down and then trying to flee without calling for help?

Two points here sparks, was the attempt to flee the scene included in the book of evidence?
Have you seen the statements given to the Gardaí by the witnesses at the scene and did they state the attempt to flee the scene?
I know it was mentioned in the media, but unless it was contained in withness statements, it couldn't be considered by the DPP.
And if you haven't seen the statements, then you are only working on conjecture there.

That I'd receive the same minimum sentence for the minor offence committed (which is rather like charging a mugger who broke his victim's arm while stealing her purse with a charge of littering for dropping that purse after the mugging) is by no means sure, especially if I'd not even tried to personally apologise to the woman.

Equally it's by no means unsure .

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and—
( a ) in case the contravention causes death or serious bodily harm to another person, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years or, at the discretion of the court,to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to both such penal servitude and such fine and....{snip}

...
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction—
( a ) in a case in which injury is caused to person, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment, and

The key point here being what Joe Duffy's expert, said, regarding what is normally done in these cases where the character and record of the individual is good, that only one of the cases would be persued.
If he does it again and is caught, thats when he will be scréwed as is the case for Joe Soap.

But all the public domain information says consistently that he has not apologised to her, but has apologised to his party.

There is something in the public domain saying he apoligised publicly to the injured woman and her family.

Mr Wright said that the incident was a serious lapse of personal responsibility on his part. He said he apologised unreservedly to the person whom he injured and to her family. He also apologised to his family, friends and constituents.

source here

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Two points here sparks, was the attempt to flee the scene included in the book of evidence?

How could it be? He wasn't charged with that offence.

Have you seen the statements given to the Gardaí by the witnesses at the scene and did they state the attempt to flee the scene?

No, I merely read the statements they gave to the press where they said that they had to restrain him to prevent his fleeing the scene. Statements he did not deny at any point.

There is something in the public domain saying he apoligised publicly to the injured woman and her family.
source here

That quote came from a press statement. The woman he hit has stated that he never contacted her or her family personally. Far as I'm concerned, his "apology" isn't one because it wasn't proferred to the victim or her family or any representative of her.
The fact is he acted in an immoral, unethical and criminal way. He would have left her to die on the street if he hadn't been restrained from doing so. And he wasn't punished for that.
So where's the defence? That because it was the first offence he shouldn't be tried? Bull****. How do we know it's the first offence? Had there been no passers-by, he'd have gotten away with it, so how do we know he didn't already? And since when has depraved indifference to human life been something that you wait to see a trend in before punishing it?

Well you did say Sparks that there was no apology in the public domain , but there was.
I'm not in the business of defending Mr Wright here as my views on the matter have already been expressed in this and other threads.

No, I merely read the statements they gave to the press where they said that they had to restrain him to prevent his fleeing the scene. Statements he did not deny at any point.

I asked you whether you had seen the witness statements, and as you haven't then you cannot say for sure at this stage whether they included statements that the accused attempted to flee the scene of an accident.

I'm aware that this was said in the media, but whether it was in the witness statements is pertinent.

As we don't know, then we can't say whether the DPP deliberately decided to ignore that or not.
Of course we can speculate but that is of no use.

How do we know it's the first offence? Had there been no passers-by, he'd have gotten away with it, so how do we know he didn't already? And since when has depraved indifference to human life been something that you wait to see a trend in before punishing it?

The answer is we don't know if it was his first offence or at best we cannot be sure.
But then that would be the case for any non T.D in the same situation.
They would be treated the same, ie their known character would be assessed.

Which I think is what you are worried about?
and therefore you cannot even say for sure in that case that there are differing rules for T.D's and non T.D's

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Well you did say Sparks that there was no apology in the public domain , but there was.

I maintain that that wasn't an apology.

I asked you whether you had seen the witness statements, and as you haven't then you cannot say for sure at this stage whether they included statements that the accused attempted to flee the scene of an accident.

Actually I can - because he wasn't charged with that offence, the statements wouldn't have been presented.

As we don't know, then we can't say whether the DPP deliberately decided to ignore that or not.
Of course we can speculate but that is of no use.

So you think it likely that he wouldn't sue for libel if it wasn't in the witness statements?
I don't.

Which I think is what you are worried about?

To be honest, only partly. The fact that anyone could get away with this would actually worry me more.
But I don't think that Liam Keane would get away with this, do you?

Bard

Originally posted by Sparks

Following the Bard's logic, it would be totally out of character for me to do anything illegal or malicious.

I hope you're not referring to me here as I haven't contributed to this thread until now and I have no idea what would or would not be out of character for you (except perhaps posting a calm, subjective response to a thread which takes other people's opinions seriously...)

I will say this though.

Your assumption that you would be treated in the same, realtively lenient way by the justice system if you were to go and sit drunk in your car outside G.V. Wrights house in Malahide waiting for him to come out and run him down, is bollocks ...- because the quite plain difference there is that that in your case, having discussed it here with us, it would be pre-meditated assault, coupled with actual or grievous bodily harm and possibly attempted murder or manslaughter. The offense in G.V. Wright's case (apparently) was accidental.

Sparks

Originally posted by Bard
I hope you're not referring to me here as I haven't contributed to this thread until now and I have no idea what would or would not be out of character for you

No, you've misunderstood me. I'm referring to your post as cited earlier in this thread where you said that because running someone down wasn't in Wright's character, he'd be treated leniently. Which I'm arguing is simply not applicable in this case - treat him leniently for the accident by all means if he shows remorse (though he hasn't, you know) - but his attempt to leave her to bleed to death on the side of the road is so far beyond the pale as to throw all leniency out the window.

Your assumption that you would be treated in the same, realtively lenient way by the justice system if you were to go and sit drunk in your car outside G.V. Wrights house in Malahide waiting for him to come out and run him down, is bollocks ...- because theres the difference there is that that in your case, having discussed it here with us, it would be pre-meditated assault, coupled with actual or grievous bodily harm and possibly attempted murder or manslaughter. The offense in G.V. Wright's case (apparently) was accidental.

Yup - if the person who did that had a drivers licence that carried the name "Sparks". As I said above, I've not pursued anonimity here, but I doubt you could prove (at least legally) that I am who my profile says I am...