Mandatory sentence?

G17

I read on the News tonight that a four year sentence was handed out to someone who was caught red handed with a Glock pistol and 18 rounds of ammo in Limerick.

Now before I start ranting, did this not happen http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR07000302


If I've missed something, fair enough, but if I haven't, this is the situation as I see it:

They (our Government) want to take my legally held sporting firearm away from me, a law abiding citizen.

Someone who had the same item for illegal purposes doesn't get the book thrown at them.

Hopefully someone will jump in an explain that I've missed a point of law which makes mandatory, well, not mandatory, I'll stand corrected.

Please tell me I HAVE missed something........

V Bull

It gets worse G17,

The gentleman is to appeal the sentence and will probably get another couple of years knocked off……………….

Banana Republic, the law is there to protect the criminal not the law abiding citizens....................

Sparks

The Judiciary and the DoJ are supposed to be seperated (the whole seperation of powers principle). Thing is, the Judiciary often fight against the idea of mandatory sentences imposed in legislation on that basis (and on the basis that if the penalty is fixed, why have a judge at all?).

But it does get under the fingernails, doesn't it?

G17

Sparks wrote: »

But it does get under the fingernails, doesn't it?

It's terribly frustrating, anyone with an illegally held firearm should expect to spend a long time in prison, no ifs buts or ands.

We, as sportsmen and women go to such great lengths to protect our firearms from misuse that it makes me scream when someone is caught red handed by a detective that they get less than the 'minimum'.

rrpc

I don't know what the circumstances of the case are, but there are two issues here. The first is that all the offences that G17 linked to involve the use of a firearm with intent to do something and don't relate to the offence of having a firearm without a licence. For that you have to go to section 2 of the firearms act which specifies an absolute maximum term of impisonment of 7 years and depending on the offence as little as 12 months.

Secondly, and this is where judges are extremely sensitive; is the issue of mitigation. Judges believe (and perhaps rightly so) that they are entitled to assess mitigating cirumstances when imposing sentences. So for instance where a person admits guilt immediately, the judges tend to be more lenient and I think with good reason seeing as such a course of action should be rewarded for reducing the cost to the taxpayer.

Trojan911

G17 wrote: »

Please tell me I HAVE missed something........

I would say, you haven't missed anything. This part of your link would seem to fit the offence..... but not the sentence...

wrote:

Possession of firearm or ammunition in suspicious circumstances - maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment and a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment;

rrpc wrote:

the judges tend to be more lenient and I think with good reason seeing as such a course of action should be rewarded for reducing the cost to the taxpayer.

No convicted criminal should be rewarded full stop. They are not thinking of saving the taxpayer money, they are thinking of getting themselves out of prison quicker, in other words they couldn't give a monkeys about you or me.

rrpc

Trojan911 wrote: »

I would say, you haven't missed anything. This part of your link would seem to fit the offence..... but not the sentence...

Perhaps you're right, but not having seen the details of the case I can't comment. However I'd expect it's hard to define what are 'suspicious circumstances' and how to prove them.

No convicted criminal should be rewarded full stop. They are not thinking of saving the taxpayer money, they are thinking of getting themselves out of prison quicker, in other words they couldn't give a monkeys about you or me.

That's your view, the judiciary and the law don't agree. The principal of mitigation is a long standing one and is very important. Without it, rape victims would be often forced to recount their violation to a public audience, which is a crime in itself to my mind. Those that force their victims into such a situation are compounding their crime.

Without mitigation, every accused person would plead not guilty and bring the court system to a standstill.

Trojan911

rrpc wrote: »

Without it, rape victims would be often forced to recount their violation to a public audience, which is a crime in itself to my mind. Those that force their victims into such a situation are compounding their crime. Without mitigation, every accused person would plead not guilty and bring the court system to a standstill.

I see where you are coming from, thus even more reason to continue to persue to change the laws for serious sexual assault cases so the ultimate violation to a living human being cannot be recounted by the complainant in an open or closed court.

rrpc wrote: »

However I'd expect it's hard to define what are 'suspicious circumstances' and how to prove them.

Anyone caught in possession with an unlicenced firearm & ammunition are suspicious circumstances......

rrpc

Trojan911 wrote: »

Anyone caught in possession with an unlicenced firearm & ammunition are suspicious circumstances......

Be careful what you wish for. A moderator is a firearm under our laws.

Trojan911

G17

rrpc wrote: »

For that you have to go to section 2 of the firearms act which specifies an absolute maximum term of impisonment of 7 years and depending on the offence as little as 12 months.

I did miss something! From what I read criminal intent wasn't mentioned. That's the other frustrating and wonderful thing about the law, fairness despite what "the dogs on the street" know.

I can only imagine how soul destroying it is for Gardaí to 'know' who is doing what, but is just shy of the evidence needed to secure a conviction.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for. A moderator is a firearm under our laws.

And several other things besides, like NV scopes and such.

Mellor

I know its frustrating when, as G17 but it;
"sportsmen and women go to such great lengths to protect our firearms from misuse that it makes me scream when someone is caught red handed by a detective that they get less than the minimum"

But, what rrpc siad is spot on regarding law. There rarely is a minimum, dispite what the link above says. And a guilty plea will almost always be considered, except when pointless. This is the foundation of judical roles accross the world.

I did miss something! From what I read criminal intent wasn't mentioned. That's the other frustrating and wonderful thing about the law, fairness despite what "the dogs on the street" know.

From what I read, he plead guilty to possession with criminal intent. The man was believe to be a member of a well know criminal gang. He was under garda survailance and was found retrieve a glock and 19 9mm rounds.

He was the first person to be arrested via a taser, apparently he didn't respond when with armed gardai when told to drop the gun.

kowloon

Best not tell anyone I put my name on the stock; altering a firearm carries a heafty penalty :rolleyes:.

CLADA

V Bull wrote: »

It gets worse G17,

The gentleman is to appeal the sentence and will probably get another couple of years knocked off……………….

Banana Republic, the law is there to protect the criminal not the law abiding citizens....................

Just to clarify, it's actually the DPP who is appealing the leniency of the sentence.