Judge lets rapist walk free, again.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

is_that_so

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I realised that after I posted it - it's more of a general question as guilty pleas can affect sentencing.

is_that_so

SyxPak wrote:

I've read through this thread, searching for a post or two that contains the info I want to know.

Why was it a 3-year suspended sentence?

Where might I go to read the transcripts from the court?

Is it because the convicted rapist would be beaten to a pulp were he to go to prison?
Is he mentally deficient?
Is his family 'connected'?
Was the substance under which he was under the influence at the time of the crime cocaine by any chance?

Summary here.

Villain

I think people need to be remember that full incident that took place here i.e.:

This is not a case of man meets girl in nightclub both are drunk they go back to a house and start kissing, man makes a move to have sex and woman says no but man continues to rape woman.

Now that is still rape and should carry a sentence.

What happened here:

Woman is asleep in bed, man carries out a criminal act of breaking and entry and rapes woman in her bed.

Now first of all there is the offence of breaking and entry which people don't seem to mentioning then you have the rape. So this isn't a case of one incident of rape where there may have been some confusion in the mans head about whether it was concensual or not, he committed two crimes here not one and Carney got it wrong this man should be locked up today.

daveirl

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Did someone say this? I'd share your annoyance if someone posted this. Got a link?

You wanted hypothetcial? If both parties consent to sex, the parties engage in intercourse and before the man ejaculates his partner suddenly realises this is not appropriate and indicates a change of mind, but the man continues and ejaculates. Jail time? If a man can't remember, there is no physical evidence of forced sexual intercourse, and the only issue is whether there was full informed consent? How would you decide that?

jawlie

I think the age old Irish game of rushing to judgement without having heard the evidence is great fun. Especially when we can throw in a little moral indignation and dust off our holier than thou attitudes.

Personally, i think we all should adopt the official position of the Sun Newspaper which seems to be "String em up it's the only language they understand" on every issue from mass murder to returning your dvd rental a day late.

How someone can pretend to think they know more, than the judge, about the circumstances surrounding this, or any, case, beggars belief.

Villain

Jawlie I know that

A: The accused ganied illegal entry into the victims house
B: A jury found him guilty of rape
C: The Judge let him walk free by suspending his sentence of only 3 years.

Is there anything else I need to know?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cast_iron

Rock Climber wrote:

Law is pretty much a lot to do with precedent and looking at this,that Judge possibly said to himself I've no choice to impose what I've imposed because if I'd have been any sterner,the appeal court would have released him.

Yes, and he would be right in doing that.

Rock Climber wrote:

I'm thinking aswell that this judge has done what judges often do and that is,he's given a shock result to show up the politicians for not acting on a point of law that morally needs changing.

If so, that's a disgrace, and it's certainly not the justice the victim of this crime and any other one where the judge does this deserves. In no circumstance should that be an accepted way for judges to voice their disquiet with the current law.

Deleted User wrote:

Judges are far from infallible, they are not above question,

True, but to apply a subtle difference: surely there should be assumption that the judges decisions should be seen to be separate from public opinion/hysteria and the political system. The judges job is to apply the law of the land fairly and evenly across the board, based ONLY on the facts of the case and the current law. It's the cornerstone of all justice systems in the democratic world, and anything else would make it a farce.

So, their decisions should be seen infallible and above question, even if they themselves are not.
That's why this case is all the more controversial.

leninbenjamin

what's the previous ruling by the appeals court that this sentence was based on? all i see are passing references, nothing specific.

Nevyn

SyxPak wrote:

I've read through this thread, searching for a post or two that contains the info I want to know.

The sententces take into consideration a range of factors about the persona foudn guilty, previous records and past behaviour and the impact on the witness.

The judge when handing down the sentence made reference that it could and would be apealed, almost as if by passing such a sentecne he was garenteed for the final ruling on it not be a matter he will have ruled on in finality.

It could well be a political move by the judge to have the laws in reguards to sentencing tightned and tidied up.

walshb

Was it Paul Carney who allowed this man to walk free, the same Carney who was involved in an after hours incident at the shelbourne hotel looking for more booze a number of years back. He said he would not feel comfortable imprisoning a man who 'acted out of character'. This man claims he was high on booze at the time of the incident, so why is a judge Like Carney residing over cases involving rape and alcohol?. Surely this can not be tolerated

Mr.Nice Guy

This decision is an absolute travesty.

My thoughts and prayers are with the woman. I am appalled at the leniency of this sentence, if you can call it one.

The judge responsible for this is a disgrace.

hullaballoo

filter_face wrote:

Hullaballú? Please, please don't tell me you're a law student - if you are I will be clinically depressed and will weep for the future of our legal system.

Not that it's any of your business what I do, I am a law student. And I'm a damned good one too.

Your two responses on this thread are quite extraordinary - 'breathless arrogance', I think, is the term.

Yes, quite.

Out of interest, was 'ab initio' meant to impress us all and hint at legal qualifications?!

No, it wasn't. I write like that all the time. Yesterday, I was fond of the turn of phrase "ab initio"; today, it's "who are you?"

But while we're on that route - did you ever hear the term 'Res Ipsa Loquitur'? No? Well, look up the meaning, and then, in relation to this trial, have a think about it.

Yeah, I've heard of it once or twice. It's a major part of the law of torts. It doesn't have any application to the criminal law whatsoever though. In fact, I can't see what bearing res ipsa loquitur would have on this case, even if it had anything to do with the criminal law: it's about the standard of proof in negligence.

Again, breathless arrogance, of the most smug kind.

Is your view that all judges are infallible, unchallengeable, unimpeachable, divine creatures who never err, and whose judgement is absolute?

If yes....oh dear. I could throw a few names at you, but the Mods would faint. But surely even you can think of a few examples that would suggest not all our judges have been so divine, nor, indeed, infallible.

Well, you certainly did a lot of reading between the lines there. I don't recall ever having said that I view judges as anything other than judges.

Remember something rather important: the judge in question is the employee of the great unwashed, they pay his way, he answers to THEM.

Remember that? Thanks for the advice. Here, I'll return the favour: forget it! It's rubbish. The state does pay judges' wages all right, but that's nothing to do with popular accountability. It's the elected government's job to be accountable to the public, and the reason for a separate judicial body is precisely so that judges won't yield to political persuasion.

As it happens, most judges do yield to politics in practice. None of that is relevant, but I feel like I've a right to reply considering you've attacked me so outright, and put words in my mouth.

While legal niceties Paul Carney might have referred to...But maybe "respectable" is code for something else?

This has nothing to do with my point at all, so I have to assume (as you've given me no other choice) that you have taken a logical leap: you think that because I don't think people should be baying for Carney's blood, that I agree with the sentence he passed? Nonsense of course, I don't think anyone in their right mind would agree that someone convicted of this manner of offence should be allowed walk free.

My point is clear enough: if you don't know the facts of the case and the reason behind the sentence, then you shouldn't be so quick to judge a man, who in this case, perpetually makes good solid decisions and has put a lot of his life into the criminal justice system.

This, actually, was quite hilarious...You'll discover, if you make it to the bar, that you're anything but infallible, unchallengeable and unimpeachable.

Ok, I'll just skip past a lot of that drivel, because I've already dealt with most of it. I just want to address one last popular fallacy that you've brought up here.

Judges and lawyers don't all make as much money as people think. It's true, a lot of tribunal lawyers and a good few Senior Counsel make healthy sums of money. The reality of the situation is that most barristers don't really make money at all. Half of them have to leave the profession because they cannot support themselves, and most of the rest make modest incomes.

Judges don't take up their positions on the bench because of the money either. It's not that great. Anyway, their earnings have nothing to do with it either. If you take a judge's robes away because you don't agree with one out of thousands of sentences he's passed down, you are leaving him with nothing. Someone who has been engrossed in the law for all of their adult lives does not have much to fall back on.

That's a humane issue, rather than a legal one. My feeling on this is that many people are too quick to hang people who make mistakes in their professional lives, just because it's in the public eye.

...Actually, seamus summed up the nub of my posts fairly well. So you just could have read that.

walshb

Look mate, the bottom line is that for the most part, judges in this country are not actually in touch with reality and do not live in the real world or experience pain and suffering like the victims who come ebefore them.
And it's their absolute arrogance that allows them a free reign to rule, answerable to nobody. Just take the drug sentencing here. It is hardly ever implemented and nobody is held accountable. Who is in charge of who I ask?

Carney was not a fit judge to be residing over a case where alcohol was involved as his record speaks for itself. The lack of credibility is astounding.
The Shelbourne hotel incident is well documented and should disqualify the man from residing over cases involving serious crime and alcohol.
Was he the judge who handed down a 5 year suspended sentence to the army ranger who butchered an 18 month old baby by slitting its throat with a swiss army knife and then claimed that it was the drink that made him do it and Carney went along with this?

lostexpectation

Deleted User wrote:

I note you start off this point with 'I bet'. Would you not agree that 'I know' is an all round better starting point, and concede that you might not know nearly as much as theJudge wholistened toall the evidence?

Judges are far from infallible, they are not above question, but hysteria and jumping to conclusions about justice for the rich is not a reasonable approach.

until I get better explaination I'l be happy to presume that, the judge made a speech because he knew the result would be questioned and publicised
the only explaination was the 'it was out of character' which must mean something.

I don't care if your the pope you get jail time for rape!

the women waived her right to anonyminty and went on live national radio and still not even her or anybody else knows why he didn't give a jail sentence? he said go read the case law? well gee thanks judge for half explaining yourself, somebody made the point elsewhere that surely the judge should apply the law and deal with the appeal when it comes.

so your lawyerly and don't jump to conclusions types can hold your horses until he actually gives a proper explaination for such a sentence.

the only other thing I read was there might has been something about him not actually finished the act? that she pushed him off.

mike65

Another Carney classic

A man who made pornographic photographs of a girl he sexually assaulted was jailed today for five years in Dublin.

In sentencing Robert Rammage at the Central Criminal Court, Mr Justice Paul Carney described the pictures as "appallingly shocking".

Rammage (67) had previously pleaded guilty to one count of oral rape, one of making 134 photographs of child pornography, and 14 of sexually assaulting a young girl on dates from June 2002 to May 2005 at a Dublin address.

In mitigation, Giollaiosa O Lideadha SC said his client wanted to express his remorse and apologise to his victim. He added that Rammage spared the girl having to give evidence at a trial by pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity and stressed that the photographs made were for his own gratification and not distributed in any way.

"From a very early stage and throughout he maintained a position not to put the victim through a trial," he said. Rammage, originally from Scotland, lived in Belfast for more than 30 years before moving to Dublin in 1997.

The court heard the defendant, from The Tramway, Spa Road, Inchicore, Dublin, had made a suicide attempt while on remand at Cloverhill Prison and was treated at Tallaght Hospital.

Mr Justice Carney told Mr O Lideadha he was totally ignoring the suicide attempt when sentencing. He jailed Rammage for six years in Arbour Hill Prison for the rape and five years each for the charges of making photographs and sexual assault.

The sentences will run concurrently, with the final year of the six year sentence suspended. The judge ordered that Rammage also has five years post prison supervision and be registered as a sex offender. His sentence was backdated to August 8, 2006, when he was remanded in custody.

"I take account of the affect on the vicim," said Judge Carney. "I'm also required to take account of the plea of guilty, the fact he has co-operated and the fact he was no previous convictions."

Carney also allowed the victim impact statement by Majella Holohan (Middelton child-killer case) which contained additional evidence, to be read out in court.

Mike.

hullaballoo

lostexpectation wrote:

until I get better explaination I'l be happy to presume that, the judge made a speech because he knew the result would be questioned and publicised

That just about sums up exactly what I think of the sentence.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but I think the idea of the sentence was to give the Court of Criminal Appeal food for thought. As he mentioned, the judge felt that a more stringent sentence might be overruled by the appellate court.

Naturally, the DPP will appeal the decision, and will be granted leave to appeal. Once this happens, the Court of Criminal Appeal will have their hands tied.

Dontico

soem people say things like "oh but irelands crime level is very low compared to other countries". try explaining that to rape victims. rape victims dont really care how low crime levels are.

i wish there was a party demanding tuffer sentances for rapists. oh wait there is. Fine Gael.

hullaballoo

Actually, there's a new criminal law bill that McDowell is rushing through the Dáil at the moment which contains provisions in this regard. It should be law by next week. It's a shambles, of course, but what do we care. Just lock people who commit crimes up and throw away the key. That's what I say.

Dontico

hullaball&#250 wrote:

It's a shambles, of course, but what do we care. Just lock people who commit crimes up and throw away the key. That's what I say.

i dont know if you are joking or if i should reply, "i agree with you completely".

Radio Mad.

Filler Face, good post. For years the people of this country have had to put up with arrogance of the worst kind from the likes of the banks, An Garda Siochana, Catholic Church and the judiciary. Thankfully, the first three listed have in some small way been brought to book. I know there's still a way to go, but things, I believe, aren't as bad as they used to be. Judges, on the other hand, continue to be allowed practice in the most high-handed, condecending, egotistical and arrogant way.

walshb

walshb wrote:

Look mate, the bottom line is that for the most part, judges in this country are not actually in touch with reality and do not live in the real world or experience pain and suffering like the victims who come ebefore them.

Huh? Judges don't experience pain and suffering? I don't accept that at all.

Needless to say, he does live in the real world. Of course, it might not be Darndale. But I'm not too sure that rape is a social thing and that the women of Foxrock are immune. Furthermore the richer classes are hardly known for bleeding heart liberalism and leniancy for criminals.

SeanW

Maybe the judge really did have his hands tied by an overly lenient Court of Criminal Appeals. Maybe he really couldn't have actually imposed a custodial sentence if the CCA is that quick to turn scumbags loose.

Or maybe Just. Carney isn't fit to be practicing, if what I've read on this thread about his behaviour in the Shelbourne some time ago, then that could very well be.

I suspect there's plenty of blame to go around. I may not know much about law (nice egomaniacal and self-important first post hulaballú), but I know about right and wrong, and letting a rapist walk without a damn good reason was wrong. Beginning, Middle, End of story. When a victim has to come out of anonymity and plead with the public for basic justice, something is seriously out of order.

Whoever was responsible, be it Justice Carney or Justices in the CCA, they seem to be living on cloud nine. And I have no hesitation in calling for their heads. Judges should IMO be held to account when they make a total mockery of justice, which is clearly what happened here.

walshb

SeanW wrote:

Maybe the judge really did have his hands tied by an overly lenient Court of Criminal Appeals. Maybe he really couldn't have actually imposed a custodial sentence if the CCA is that quick to turn scumbags loose.

Or maybe Just. Carney isn't fit to be practicing, if what I've read on this thread about his behaviour in the Shelbourne some time ago, then that could very well be.

I suspect there's plenty of blame to go around. I may not know much about law (nice egomaniacal and self-important first post hulaballú), but I know about right and wrong, and letting a rapist walk without a damn good reason was wrong. Beginning, Middle, End of story. When a victim has to come out of anonymity and plead with the public for basic justice, something is seriously out of order.

Whoever was responsible, be it Justice Carney or Justices in the CCA, they seem to be living on cloud nine. And I have no hesitation in calling for their heads. Judges should IMO be held to account when they make a total mockery of justice, which is clearly what happened here.

Hear hear!!!!

walshb

Well of course they do. If I kick a judge between the legs I'm sure he/she will experience pain or if one of their relatives dies that too will result in pain.
Don't be so picky. All I was trying to get across is the fact that they do not work on the ground with victims of crime, drug filled communities etc etc. They are sheltered from a lot of this because of where the live, their financial clout etc etc. It's society and it's life, yet they have all the power when it comes to dishing out sentences for some of the filthiest scum in this country. A lot of them will never experience crime the way others will and will quite often. Bottom line is that money and security will protect you to a certain degree against crime and unnecessary suffering. If they were so in touch with reality, maybe they would start handing down life sentences to rapists, heroin pushers and murderers. If they could see the real effects on communities and victims.

walshb

walshb wrote:

All I was trying to get across is the fact that they do not work on the ground with victims of crime, drug filled communities etc etc.

That is true enough. And very desirable too. I'd rather dispassion than someone who worked in drug ridden communities and may have some 'addicts are victims' type liberal attitude. Or will have been in the neighborhood vigilante group either for that matter. Plus, again, I suspect that Carney will have dealt in detail with as many rape cases and sexual assault cases as some social worker in Ballymun.

Incidentally, the Judges in my locality (South Kerry) come from small farms and the like. Not too sure that the image of ivory towers and rarified atmospheres is accurate.

Nevyn

walshb wrote:

Was he the judge who handed down a 5 year suspended sentence to the army ranger who butchered an 18 month old baby by slitting its throat with a swiss army knife and then claimed that it was the drink that made him do it and Carney went along with this?

He also gave a suspended sentence to an army office who raped his teen daughther while drunk, the excuses being he was drunk, his wife was very pregnant and he had not gotten any and it was out of charcther.

Mr.Nice Guy

Thaedydal wrote:

He also gave a suspended sentence to an army office who raped his teen daughther while drunk, the excuses being he was drunk, his wife was very pregnant and he had not gotten any and it was out of charcther.

So exactly how many injustices has this guy presided over? It's unbelievable.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.