Judge lets rapist walk free, again.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

this thread is libellous. danger will robinson

Mr.Nice Guy

Here's another one for you. Just found this on a Google search. It's from an RTE News report from January 2004...

The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has called on the Director of Public Prosecutions to examine a decision by the Central Criminal Court to allow a youth convicted of raping another man to walk free.

17-year-old Gary Davis of Kenilworth Lane, Rathmines, admitted sexually assaulting a 50-year-old man at Dominick Street Flats in November 2001. He was 15 years old at the time.

This afternoon, Mr Justice Paul Carney handed down a three year suspended sentence for the offence.

Mr Justice Carney said he took into consideration Davis' young age, his expression of remorse and his guilty plea.

The chairwoman of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, Breda Allen, said the sentence may discourage other victims from reporting rape.

Sound familiar? This guy is not worthy of the position he holds. Surely I'm not the only one who finds this deeply disturbing?

The link is here.

hullaballoo

SeanW wrote:

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.

Yes, I agree with you. It is wrong. I did mention that in my other posts, but again, like the rest of the people in this thread who've attacked my posts, you have read into my posts something that I never said.

My point, again, was this: you shouldn't ask for a man to be sacked because of one mistake, especially if you aren't familiar with all of the facts of the case.

If it's any consolation to all of you bleeding hearts, I do think that there should be some sort of judicial review around this decision, and possibly some other decisions by him.

CiaranC wrote:

this thread is libellous.

Nah, it's ok. I'm unlikely to ever sue boards. It is me you're talking about, right? I mean, I don't see how anyone else has been libelled by this thread. I could be reading it wrong though.

filter_face

Honest hullaballú, you really didn’t need to tell me you were a law student. It was evident.

And really all your posts do is confirm the great unwashed’s worst fears about the character of individuals attracted to the legal profession these days. God be with the days when it attracted men and women of self-effacing integrity, like my father. Your breezy superciliousness and self-importance say all I need to know about you, and provide all the context I need for your ‘opinions’ on this rape case.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

And I'm a damned good one too.

Why did you need to say that? Doth you protest too much?!

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Yesterday, I was fond of the turn of phrase "ab initio"; today, it's "who are you?"

Do you know what you sound like? A Premiership footballer. "Who are you?" All front, no class, and even less breeding.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Re res ipsa loquitur: 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.

Your lack of comprehension of res ipsa loquitur amused me. Out of interest I copied and pasted your response in to Google….and what came up? The word-for-word Wikipedia definition of res ipsa loquitur!! Except you misunderstood it, because you are not au fait with the law of torts. Oh dear hullaballú, is Wikipedia the best you can do?!

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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.

Ah, an attempt to twist your opponent’s words to fit your argument? A feeble attempt, my boy. It certainly wouldn’t stand up in court, the jury would laugh you out the door.

But I was heartened to read you spit those words out, they must have hurt: “The state does pay judges' wages all right.”

Mere civil servants, eh?

But no, hullaballú, nobody with any knowledge of these matters – and evidently I am significantly more familiar with the law than you (but learning, rather than Wikipedia, was my tutor) - would be imprudent enough to suggest that judges should be swayed by popular opinion. What they should be swayed by, when it comes to sentencing, is a sense of decency and doing the right thing, both in an effort to apply and uphold this state’s rule of law, thereby reassuring their employers, the citizens of this state, that justice will be delivered. You mightn’t find this on Wikipedia, but talk to your superiors, those who understand that applying and upholding this state’s rule of law is a sacred matter.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

As it happens, most judges do yield to politics in practice.

Happily, this is utterly untrue.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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.

Ah ha, a u-turn! I sincerely hope you’re not wilting under the pressure of popular accountability?!

hullaball&#250 wrote:

….a man who has put a lot of his life into the criminal justice system

Wholly irrelevant. Reggie Kray put a lot of his life into crime, it didn’t mean the citizens of the East End had to be grateful. Quality, hullaballú, not quantity. And I repeat: this service is hardly offered on a voluntary basis, so, again, spare me that guff.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Ok, I'll just skip past a lot of that drivel, because I've already dealt with most of it.

Even with the assistance of Wikipedia, you dealt with none of it.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Judges and lawyers don't all make as much money as people think.

Judicial Salaries:

Chief Justice - €262,983
President of the High Court - €244,199
Judge of the Supreme Court - €229,173
President of the Circuit Court - €221,660
Judge of the High Court - €216,027
President of the District Court - €163,428
Judge of the Circuit Court - €157,794
Judge of the District Court - €131,494

Plus…….and this is the biggie…….expenses!

I wouldn’t worry about them having their electricity cut off due to unpaid bills, hullaballú.

It goes without saying that these salaries, while eye-popping for the great unwashed, are small change next to the Tribunals’ horde, or the Premiership barristers, but I’d hazard an informed guess that these lads wouldn’t have accepted the appointments if they hadn’t their big loot made. And you know that to be true, hullaballú.

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Someone who has been engrossed in the law for all of their adult lives does not have much to fall back on.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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.

Ah ha, so you agree Mr Carney made a mistake?

filter_face

hullaball&#250 wrote:

If it's any consolation to all of you bleeding hearts, I do think that there should be some sort of judicial review around this decision, and possibly some other decisions by him.

So, those who expressed dismay at a convicted rapist walking free are "bleeding hearts"? Says it all hullaballú, says it all.

Villain

So what do people think the sentence will be after appeal from DPP, 5 years with 2 suspended?

filter_face

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Just lock people who commit crimes up and throw away the key. That's what I say.

Except rapists?

Nevyn

wiki wrote:

Mr Justice Paul Carney is one of the most senior judges of the Irish High Court and the presiding judge of the Central Criminal Court. He is widely regarded as a leading expert on Irish criminal law and has presided over murder and rape trials since his appointment to the High Court in 1991. Since 2002 the Central Criminal Court has heard cases in regional locations around the country. For the first time in the history of the State the court heard two murder cases in Cork in 2005.

Mr Justice Carney is a former student of Gonzaga College, and a graduate of University College Dublin and the Honorable Society of King’s Inns. He was called to the Bar in 1966 and was appointed a judge of the High Court in 1991. Both his parents were academics and founded a Department of Celtic Studies at the University of Uppsala, Sweden.

In May, 2006 the appointment of the Honourable Mr Justice Paul Carney as Adjunct Professor of the Faculty of Law, University College, Cork was announced.

Prior to being appointed a judge, Paul Carney was a member of the Progressive Democrats.

After 16 years maybe he need a break from such trails.

filter_face

Thaedydal wrote:

After 16 years maybe he need a break from such trials.

Carney was election agent for.................Michael McDowell.

is_that_so

filter_face wrote:

Honest hullaballú, you really didn’t need to tell me you were a law student. It was evident.

And really all your posts do is confirm the great unwashed’s worst fears about the character of individuals attracted to the legal profession these days. God be with the days when it attracted men and women of self-effacing integrity, like my father. Your breezy superciliousness and self-importance say all I need to know about you, and provide all the context I need for your ‘opinions’ on this rape case.



Why did you need to say that? Doth you protest too much?!



Do you know what you sound like? A Premiership footballer. "Who are you?" All front, no class, and even less breeding.



Your lack of comprehension of res ipsa loquitur amused me. Out of interest I copied and pasted your response in to Google….and what came up? The word-for-word Wikipedia definition of res ipsa loquitur!! Except you misunderstood it, because you are not au fait with the law of torts. Oh dear hullaballú, is Wikipedia the best you can do?!



Ah, an attempt to twist your opponent’s words to fit your argument? A feeble attempt, my boy. It certainly wouldn’t stand up in court, the jury would laugh you out the door.

But I was heartened to read you spit those words out, they must have hurt: “The state does pay judges' wages all right.”

Mere civil servants, eh?

But no, hullaballú, nobody with any knowledge of these matters – and evidently I am significantly more familiar with the law than you (but learning, rather than Wikipedia, was my tutor) - would be imprudent enough to suggest that judges should be swayed by popular opinion. What they should be swayed by, when it comes to sentencing, is a sense of decency and doing the right thing, both in an effort to apply and uphold this state’s rule of law, thereby reassuring their employers, the citizens of this state, that justice will be delivered. You mightn’t find this on Wikipedia, but talk to your superiors, those who understand that applying and upholding this state’s rule of law is a sacred matter.

Much as your primogeniture establishes you as eminently better qualified than any of us to comment on this, humour me ,condescend to tell us your own exalted opinion of this case.

Because we the "great unwashed", even when we jump up and down, bless us, are seriously troubled, even without "Whineline", as to what justice means, when confronted with the apparent "illogicality" of this case.

My own particular "weak-minded confusion" here is how the judge or you or I for that matter are qualified to either determine or include the term "out of character" , a term better suited to Dickens than modern life, and then apply it to a court case that has unquestionably damaged a woman's life?

oscarBravo

filter_face banned for a week. This isn't the Thunderdome.

walshb

Well there it is. How is it that a judge who is known to the authorities to himself have a drink problem allowed reside over such cases.
If anything it compromises the trial as he is not impartial or unbiased.
It's an absolute disgrace. It's like he is listening to the drunken defence and thinking to himself "I know how that guy feels"....

The Shelbourne hotel incident should have been it for Carney.
It's far too serious an issue to allow him sit at trials where peoples
lives are at stake and hope he's in the right frame of
mind to see that proper justice is served.

It would be exactly the same as allowing a judge who has a
conviction or was involved in child pornography reside over cases involving
such crimes. Where is the transparency?

InFront

walshb wrote:

Well there it is. How is it that a judge who is known to the authorities to himself have a drink problem allowed reside over such cases.

What authorities? To my knowledge there isn't an authority that records the incidence of alcohol problems amongst public servants. I think resorting to badmouthing the man's personal life cheapens the point being made that a guy who rapes a woman in her own home gets to walk free.
Do you not think that point with the added circumstances is a complete argument in itself?

Judge Carney, despite the protests of some, is not the victim here either. He has let a rapist walk free from the court, regardless of whatever apparently clever judicial tactics he was seeking to play. Whatever about calling for his head, that is bound to erode faith in his responsibility.
Not only have the extenuating circumstances of this case not been revealed, there does not appear to be any 'special/ delicate circumstance' that the media have been barred from reporting on - so that is clearly going to lead us to conlude that from what we can tell, there is no extenuating circumstance at all.

cast_iron

I find it truly breath taking that some people here think that Paul Carney made the decision to teach the politicians or the court of criminal appeals a lesson AND don't seem to indicate that they don't see this as a big problem.

As others have alluded to, to use a rape victim as a pawn in judges politics is nothing short of a disgrace to the judiciary, and every man, woman and child, and every victim of crime in this country - which, lest we forget, is who they are their to serve.
It not a judges job to send a message to ANYONE but those who may commit crimes in this country.
Any suggestion otherwise shows how far removed from reality, people actually think justice is.

(I'm not saying those who have posted approve sending a message to politicians/courts, but to not condemn it when they condemn other factors of the decision is very, very worrying. IMO, judges sending a message is much, much worse than the recent decision itself is, as, by definition, it would imply it's done regularly, and to alot more than the victim of the crime in question).

johnnyskeleton

kbannon wrote:

I thought the minister had no involvement in all of this. I thought it was down to an independant board. If Im wrong then what makes the minister qualified to decide this?

The parole board does the grunt work, but when you refer to the department of justice as a decision making body you refer it as the minister, because he bears the ultimate responsibility for every decision. Even if the politician himself does not deport every failed asylum seeker, request every extradition or make every decision on parole personally, they are his decisions and he must account for them. It's the same as the way the Director of Public Prosecutions does not run furiously between all the trials each day. Also, the actual minister himself can sometimes intervene (I think the last Engish Home Secretary refused parole to the Jamie Bolger killers personally as a political ploy). He is qualified by the fact that he is elected. This power to grant parole, remission or temporary release is not unlimited however.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don’t think you can get anything other then speculation on this because the public are excluded from rape trials, but this is the best I can do…

I suppose at the far end of the scale you might have a situation where an offender is young, and slightly mentally handicapped, he was kissing and groping etc his girlfriend, the complainant with her consent, or even instigated by her, and when it came to it, he was simply not able to understand that while she was consenting to behaviour close to sexual intercourse, she was not consenting to actual intercourse. After the initial shock and pain caused, the complainant finds that she has pity for the offender, because he is not an evil or a bad man, but just made a terrible mistake.

In this situation, where the victim does not blame the offender, is not out for his blood, there are no aggravating factors over and above the rape, and at the same time he pleads guilty, is sorry, tries to make it up to her (even though he never could) and sending him to prison will not achieve anything, this might be appropriate for a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence is by no means no sentence; the offender will have a criminal record, be on the sex offenders register and in the hypothetical situation above, would probably feel genuine remorse and find their whole world changed completely. Added to this, if that offender stepped out of line again, even on a relatively minor offence, the suspended sentence could be activated.

The case reported in the news is far from that situation. In my personal opinion, there are some aggravating factors which go over and beyond any normal aggravating factors (in any criminal offence). They are invasion of the home, exploitation of the vulnerable, acting in the course of organised crime, and being a dangerous and reckless threat to society in general. Any of these factors will make the already very serious offence of rape much worse, and there could be two or three of these factors in this case. On the facts as presented in the media (and these are almost certainly not the full story) this appears to me to be near to the most serious rapes (but as must be said, I don't know, I wasn't in the court).

lostexpectation wrote:

the only explaination was the 'it was out of character' which must mean something

I think this just means that he had no previous convictions, or no serious ones at any rate. I don't think there is anything untoward in it.

Irish1 wrote:

Now first of all there is the offence of breaking and entry which people don't seem to mentioning

I think there is an old offence specifically called burglary with intent to commit rape, or something like that. I think it’s in one of the Offences Against the Person Acts from the 19th century

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.

I would disagree somewhat with this, and the comment about drug sentencing. Judges deal with criminals on a daily basis, and often become very familiar with the progress of their lives. Some judges are quite moved by the efforts of some drug addicts to reform, and at the same time they get good at susing out insincere attempts to reform. Also, it should be noted that most of the people who come before the courts as “major drug dealers” are usually the stooges who carry the drugs from A to B. The real criminals generally don’t get caught. Therefore, high sentences in drugs cases are really only punishing drug users and people desperate for money – they do not really get to the crime bosses.

It has been suggested that this sentence is somehow Judge Carney cocking a snook at the CCA. I can’t see this myself. Of all the judges, Paul Carney tends to be a very robust sentencer, and he doesn’t strike me as the type that would do something like this out of spite. I can’t explain this sentence, but I don’t think people should be suggesting that the whole legal system should be done away with or calling for a judge’s resignation. This is not helpful, and I think the only difference such statements make is that they re-enforce the fears felt by rape victims that there is no point going to court. I would ask people not to make this situation worse by saying there is no justice for rape victims. It is right to criticise the judgment if you think it is wrong, and I definitely think it should be held up to serious scrutiny. But please bear in mind that this is a public forum, and unrestrained criticism of our justice system, while fine when you are speaking to a friend, could be read by someone here who wants to go to the police but is scared, and the last thing we want to do is suggest to them that the legal system will fail them. The majority of rape convictions do received quite severe prision sentences, and this case is very much the exception rather than the rule

meepins

oscarBravo wrote:

filter_face banned for a week. This isn't the Thunderdome.

Laugh.
Ah cmon I quite enjoyed him taking that guy apart.

stewie01

meepins wrote:

Laugh.
Ah cmon I quite enjoyed him taking that guy apart.

Please unban him that was hillarious.

im sure hes your best mod friend in the world but he can fight his own corner by what i have read

oscarBravo

Not gonna happen. This is a forum for serious debate, not for fighting corners - especially against trolls who argue contrarian (and factually incorrect) positions purely for the sake of argument.

Back on topic.

stewie01

well then from what i've read about this judge i think he should be struck off or at least locked in a room with that drunk 15 year old boy for a few hours and see if his opinions change to the severety of his sentences.

also if it is true about his relationship with Michael McD, its strange that this would create such a storm just when Mike is entering new laws in this area near a GE, although i think that belongs in conspiracies.

InFront

There's new child protection legislation being introduced, but nothing do do with rape cases like this afaik. It isn't a problem with legislation, the law is there.

stewie01

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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.

Did i misunderstand this then? wats this new criminal law bill hes talkin about?

InFront

I don't know, the criminal justice bill? I can't see how that bill relates specifically to this case; its main target is ganagland activity. It certainly won't be in force by next week anyway.

padser

Having read through the entire I would just like to pose a couple of questions to try and get it back on topic

1) Can someone please explain why they feel that if Carney J handed down a suspended sentence to a rapist for 'political reasons' or to 'make a policitical statement and put pressure on the politicians' that this in some way justifies a lenient sentence. In my opinion this makes it far far worse.

2) Why is it unacceptable to say that a judge is unfit to discharge his duties based on judgements he has handed down? No one would object to our right to say a mod is unfit to mod, or that a teacher is unfit to teach. Why is it different for judges. I would agree that if we had the power to actually make the decision we would have to take other factors such as the effect on the persons life into consideration - but surely there is a greatly differing standard of investigation and contemplation needed to make the comment 'I think Judge X is doing a bad job and shouldn't be allowed to continue' to actually dismissing the said judge.

3) The notion that judges must inevitably yield to political pressure is untrue - except where legislation is actually passed. This can be seen recently in England where judges bit back at what they saw as political interventino by the Home Office there - I don't agree with what they did - but it shows they didnt need to bend to political pressure meekly, they could fight back

4) Judges are neither infallible nor demi gods. Hardiman J spoke in UCD recently and I (and from talking to others who attended I wasn't the only one) found his basic logic seriously flawed when any serious thought analysis was applied to it. Antonin Scalia spoke in UCD recently (american supreme court justice) and although I didn't attend from listening to people who did, and reading reports afterwards it appears that some of his ideas seem to be very contradictory. My point is that just because judges have risen towards the top of their proffession doesn't mean they are infallible - or that we should blindly defer to them using reasoning like 'He is a judge - who are you to question his judgement'.

Mr.Nice Guy

Justice Carney seems to have a habit of making the headlines...

http://unitedirelander.blogspot.com/2007/03/justice-carney-must-be-removed.html

HelterSkelter

Some guy was locked up today for stealing from a pensioner's home (http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0315/law.html). My initial reaction was that he should have raped her, then he wouldn't have been jailed.

Computer Nerd

Hi Mr. Nice Guy

Been Carney watching for the past 12 years. He hates the gardi, he's horrible to witnesses etc.

I do believe that his main motive is to be controvertial, which is bad justice for victims. I was a witness in his court once & he was horrible to me & all the other witnesses, we were only witnesses for crissake. As a result I will never say I saw anything again no matter what.

Regards

Nevyn

padser wrote:

Having read through the entire I would just like to pose a couple of questions to try and get it back on topic

1) Can someone please explain why they feel that if Carney J handed down a suspended sentence to a rapist for 'political reasons' or to 'make a policitical statement and put pressure on the politicians' that this in some way justifies a lenient sentence. In my opinion this makes it far far worse.

He said in his statement that he knew the sentence would be apealed.
He also knew that there are new laws being debated about senctencing and that by the time this case has it's chance to have the sentence apealed
there will be changes.

padser wrote:

2) Why is it unacceptable to say that a judge is unfit to discharge his duties based on judgements he has handed down? No one would object to our right to say a mod is unfit to mod, or that a teacher is unfit to teach. Why is it different for judges. I would agree that if we had the power to actually make the decision we would have to take other factors such as the effect on the persons life into consideration - but surely there is a greatly differing standard of investigation and contemplation needed to make the comment 'I think Judge X is doing a bad job and shouldn't be allowed to continue' to actually dismissing the said judge.

No all of the facts of the cases are before the public when they hear about the sentences and judgements and make their call on them.

padser wrote:

3) The notion that judges must inevitably yield to political pressure is untrue - except where legislation is actually passed. This can be seen recently in England where judges bit back at what they saw as political interventino by the Home Office there - I don't agree with what they did - but it shows they didnt need to bend to political pressure meekly, they could fight back

Who watches the watch men ?
All of the appointments to the bench in the country esp criminal and high court are political.

padser wrote:

4) Judges are neither infallible nor demi gods. Hardiman J spoke in UCD recently and I (and from talking to others who attended I wasn't the only one) found his basic logic seriously flawed when any serious thought analysis was applied to it. Antonin Scalia spoke in UCD recently (american supreme court justice) and although I didn't attend from listening to people who did, and reading reports afterwards it appears that some of his ideas seem to be very contradictory. My point is that just because judges have risen towards the top of their proffession doesn't mean they are infallible - or that we should blindly defer to them using reasoning like 'He is a judge - who are you to question his judgement'.

It is unflortunaly the won't argue with or question your betters attitude which
has been damaging to this country for a long time.

padser

Computer Nerd wrote:

He hates the gardi

Finally - someone has come up with a point in Carney's favour - well it was bound to happen.

Although I'm nearly sure I read a quote from him in the Irish times a few months back where he said that we must basically believe the Gardai when their testomony contradicts that of a member of the public - otherwise the system will fall down. Something to that effect.

gbh

The judges seem to be a law unto themselves and accountable to no-one.

Maybe its time we elected our Circuit Court Judges by popular vote...Don't they have elections for some judges in the US? Surely we have to hold them to account some way? I mean can a judge be sacked if they make a woeful error of judgement as seems to have happened in this case?