Man who knocked down burglar in court

44leto

The irish justice system makes me sick sometimes. So some opportune scumbag get set for life after a burglary where he got caught and the victim has his life destroyed.

Curly Judge

benway wrote: »

He got his legs broken while he was going down the street, not breaking any laws or being negligent himself at that stage. What happened before is irrelevant for the purposes of the insurance claim.

McCaughey ran the guy over, intentionally or negligently, causing him injury. He can sue. End of.

Even if there were a bar to suing for injuries incurred in the course of committing a crime, the crime was over, and he was a long way from the scene. No, wait, let me guess. "Criminals" and "scumbags" shouldn't be allowed to sue "respectable people" ever, right?

***

So, what then - disallow the insurance claim and have the driver/householder bear the liability themselves? This is basically what you're suggesting.

A couple of points!
If I accidentally hit a pedestrian on the road, through it be no fault of mine, and I drive away in my car, I am committing a crime.
And as I drive away - be it one or a hundred miles -I continue to commit a crime.
Surely a burglar, who deliberately commits a crime, and then runs away with the proceeds of that crime - for the sole purpose of evading arrest - continues to commit a crime.
Today on the radio I heard a legal correspondent from one of the major newspapers state that one of the reasons the courts continue to grant free legal aid to major - and presumably rich - criminals was because the legal profession were barred from accepting fees from criminals just in case the money came from the proceeds of crime.
Yet it is perfectly okay to hand out 175,000 euro to a gentleman who gets injured running off with his swag.
Heads: The criminals and their grazing stock - the legal system - win!
Tails: We lose!

Curly Judge

Ormus wrote: »

I agree, he will surely be back in court in no time, and his suspended sentence will then be activated, so he will do time for this crime.

Did I not read somewhere that he has 32 previous convictions.
Your faith in the law is to be admired.

greendom

I see here the potential to reduce the burgeoning social welfare bill. If more charitable, affluent individuals like the home-owner are prepared to sponsor the unemployed to an equal degree as he is doing, it could lead to a much reduced social welfare bill.

Would they be happy to damage their cars for such a noble cause though ?

tayto lover

I have always said that someone should only get Free Legal Aid if found innocent.
If found guilty then pay for your solicitor out of your dole. The criminal would then think twice.
I am fed up paying for criminality.

benway

Curly Judge wrote: »

A couple of points!
If I accidentally hit a pedestrian on the road, through it be no fault of mine, and I drive away in my car, I am committing a crime.
And as I drive away - be it one or a hundred miles -I continue to commit a crime.
Surely a burglar, who deliberately commits a crime, and then runs away with the proceeds of that crime - for the sole purpose of evading arrest - continues to commit a crime.
Today on the radio I heard a legal correspondent from one of the major newspapers state that one of the reasons the courts continue to grant free legal aid to major - and presumably rich - criminals was because the legal profession were barred from accepting fees from criminals just in case the money came from the proceeds of crime.
Yet it is perfectly okay to hand out 175,000 euro to a gentleman who gets injured running off with his swag.
Heads: The criminals and their grazing stock - the legal system - win!
Tails: We lose!

I don't know why I'm even still bothering with this ..

There's a particular offense, of leaving the scene of an accident. Burglary is also a particular offense. As is possessing stolen goods - the burglary ends once the burglar has left the house, but if they've got "swag" they're still committing another, different offense.

You're entitled to use reasonable force to hold them for arrest or to reclaim your property. Running him over in a car isn't reasonable force - in fact, I'm not sure that it was even raised as a defense. This is where the problem arises.

That legal aid point is completely ludicrous, where did you hear it anyway? Most criminals aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination ... actually, the vast majority of criminals are not far from destitution. They wouldn't be able to afford representation - in the overwhelming majority of cases there are no spare "proceeds of crime" to be had.

Many accused don't have sufficient education to represent themselves, and even if they had the education, the legal system can be difficult to navigate, even for trained professionals. This is why we have legal aid - because nobody should be forced to face into criminal charges without representation, and many can't afford it, it's got nothing to do with the proceeds of crime.

If the Gardaí think that someone's got plenty of spare cash squirreled away somewhere, they should set the Criminal Assets Bureau on them, put them in a position that they genuinely will need legal aid.

But, it's irrelevant whether someone was running off with swag or what they were doing for the purposes of a compensation claim. It's this simple - the Plaintiff was injured by an act of the Defendant that was intentional, or negligent, in circumstances where it could reasonably have been foreseen that the Plaintiff would be injured. End of.

There's no real argument the insurers could make against it - he was run down intentionally in circumstances where no reasonable excuse can be made. He presented no threat, the driver could just have called the cops, but he preferred to go vigilante. The fact that the guy was committing a crime doesn't justify disproportionate violence, not under the criminal law and certainly not under the civil law.

People seem to think that the guy made a killing off this ... but I'd say that a substantial chunk of it will go to medical practitioners, etc. Whatever about it, the amount he got has nothing to do with the courts or the legal system - the insurers could have chosen to fight the case, but they settled and how they want to run their business is up to them.

tayto lover wrote: »

I am fed up paying for criminality.

So am I, but legal aid is small beans by comparison with NAMA.

Curly Judge

benway wrote: »

I don't know why I'm even still bothering with this ..

There's a particular offense, of leaving the scene of an accident. Burglary is also a particular offense. As is possessing stolen goods - the burglary ends once the burglar has left the house, but if they've got "swag" they're still committing another, different offense.

You're entitled to use reasonable force to hold them for arrest or to reclaim your property. Running him over in a car isn't reasonable force - in fact, I'm not sure that it was even raised as a defense. This is where the problem arises.

That legal aid point is completely ludicrous, where did you hear it anyway? Most criminals aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination ... actually, the vast majority of criminals are not far from destitution. They wouldn't be able to afford representation - in the overwhelming majority of cases there are no spare "proceeds of crime" to be had.

Many accused don't have sufficient education to represent themselves, and even if they had the education, the legal system can be difficult to navigate, even for trained professionals. This is why we have legal aid - because nobody should be forced to face into criminal charges without representation, and many can't afford it, it's got nothing to do with the proceeds of crime.

If the Gardaí think that someone's got plenty of spare cash squirreled away somewhere, they should set the Criminal Assets Bureau on them, put them in a position that they genuinely will need legal aid.

But, it's irrelevant whether someone was running off with swag or what they were doing for the purposes of a compensation claim. It's this simple - the Plaintiff was injured by an act of the Defendant that was intentional, or negligent, in circumstances where it could reasonably have been foreseen that the Plaintiff would be injured. End of.

There's no real argument the insurers could make against it - he was run down intentionally in circumstances where no reasonable excuse can be made. He presented no threat, the driver could just have called the cops, but he preferred to go vigilante. The fact that the guy was committing a crime doesn't justify disproportionate violence, not under the criminal law and certainly not under the civil law.

People seem to think that the guy made a killing off this ... but I'd say that a substantial chunk of it will go to medical practitioners, etc. Whatever about it, the amount he got has nothing to do with the courts or the legal system - the insurers could have chosen to fight the case, but they settled and how they want to run their business is up to them.


So am I, but legal aid is small beans by comparison with NAMA.

Exceedingly decent of you to condescend coming down to our level.
Thanks a mill.

benway

Curly Judge wrote: »

Exceedingly decent of you to condescend coming down to our level.
Thanks a mill.

No worries, the pleasure was all mine

Ormus

Curly Judge wrote: »

Did I not read somewhere that he has 32 previous convictions.
Your faith in the law is to be admired.

Nothing to do with faith. He got a suspended sentence. That means a sentence which is suspended for a few years unless or until he commits a similar crime, at which time it gets automatically activated.

thebigbiffo

benway wrote: »

I don't know why I'm even still bothering with this ..

There's a particular offense, of leaving the scene of an accident. Burglary is also a particular offense. As is possessing stolen goods - the burglary ends once the burglar has left the house, but if they've got "swag" they're still committing another, different offense.

You're entitled to use reasonable force to hold them for arrest or to reclaim your property. Running him over in a car isn't reasonable force - in fact, I'm not sure that it was even raised as a defense. This is where the problem arises.

That legal aid point is completely ludicrous, where did you hear it anyway? Most criminals aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination ... actually, the vast majority of criminals are not far from destitution. They wouldn't be able to afford representation - in the overwhelming majority of cases there are no spare "proceeds of crime" to be had.

Many accused don't have sufficient education to represent themselves, and even if they had the education, the legal system can be difficult to navigate, even for trained professionals. This is why we have legal aid - because nobody should be forced to face into criminal charges without representation, and many can't afford it, it's got nothing to do with the proceeds of crime.

If the Gardaí think that someone's got plenty of spare cash squirreled away somewhere, they should set the Criminal Assets Bureau on them, put them in a position that they genuinely will need legal aid.

But, it's irrelevant whether someone was running off with swag or what they were doing for the purposes of a compensation claim. It's this simple - the Plaintiff was injured by an act of the Defendant that was intentional, or negligent, in circumstances where it could reasonably have been foreseen that the Plaintiff would be injured. End of.

There's no real argument the insurers could make against it - he was run down intentionally in circumstances where no reasonable excuse can be made. He presented no threat, the driver could just have called the cops, but he preferred to go vigilante. The fact that the guy was committing a crime doesn't justify disproportionate violence, not under the criminal law and certainly not under the civil law.

People seem to think that the guy made a killing off this ... but I'd say that a substantial chunk of it will go to medical practitioners, etc. Whatever about it, the amount he got has nothing to do with the courts or the legal system - the insurers could have chosen to fight the case, but they settled and how they want to run their business is up to them.


So am I, but legal aid is small beans by comparison with NAMA.

perfectly summed up in fairness. +1

now...i'd still run the f'ucker over

Stark

That's the theory behind suspended sentencing. I rarely see this automatic activation in practice though. (The guy in question here doesn't seem to have had any of his previous suspended sentences activated for example).

Ormus

Stark wrote: »

That's the theory behind suspended sentencing. I rarely see this automatic activation in practice though. (The guy in question here doesn't seem to have had any of his previous suspended sentences activated for example).

They only last a certain period of time. I think this was his first offence in about 5 years so he had a clean slate as far as the previous convictions were concerned.

thebigbiffo

Ormus wrote: »

They only last a certain period of time. I think this was his first offence in about 5 years so he had a clean slate as far as the previous convictions were concerned.

so basically you get off the crime for life so long as you're not caught within a 5 year time period ie. you're never really punished for your crime at all.

Ormus

A BUSINESSMAN charged with assaulting a man who broke into his house was previously successfully sued for €175,000 by the burglar, a court heard yesterday.
Louth-based property developer Martin McCaughey (48) is accused of using a Mercedes car "as a weapon" to assault Daniel McCormack (27).
Mr McCaughey denies reckless endangerment at Clann Chulainn Park, Farndreg, Dundalk, on June 27, 2008. He also denies assault causing harm on the same date.
McCormack previously received a suspended jail sentence for the burglary, but also successfully sued the businessman.
McCormack told Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court yesterday that he had been very drunk when he left his house in the early hours of the morning and went into the home of Mr McCaughey.
He did not remember everything that happened there. But he could recall going in a side door and into an upstairs bathroom where there was jewellery.
He told the jury he found himself there "with jewellery stuck in my pockets".
He then heard shouting and ran from the house and garden towards his home at Clann Chulainn Park.
The court heard Mr McCaughey was dressed in just his boxer shorts and he had shouted at McCormack as he ran from the house.
Wheelchair
The court heard that McCormack's house at Benvista, Mount Avenue, overlooked the Clann Chulainn Park estate, and that Mr McCaughey had been involved in building it.
McCormack was in his estate when he said he was struck by a car. He said he "limped on" and got hit a second time by it. He said the accused told him, "I will kill you if you get up".
Both his legs were broken and he was in hospital for two -and-a-half weeks. He was in a wheelchair for six to eight weeks and then on crutches.
Cross-examined by Brendan Grehan, defending, McCormack agreed that when he went into the house he "was trespassing" and "looking for things to steal".
He also agreed he had left his home that morning planning to burgle houses and had done this before.
The court heard McCormack had been charged with burglary at Mr McCaughey's home and received a three-year sentence, which had been suspended.
He agreed he had sued Mr McCaughey and received €175,000. McCormack said he had given €50,000 of this to the hospital where he had been treated.
When Mr Grehan put it to him that Mr McCaughey had wanted him to wait for the gardai to arrive after the incident in Clann Chulainn Park but he (McCormack) was intent on getting away, he agreed.
"I was more afraid of him than he was of me," he said.
Mr Grehan asked if Mr McCaughey had tried to "box you in with his car", and McCormack answered, "yes".
John English, who lives in Clann Chulainn Park, was making coffee at about 6am when he looked out his kitchen window and saw that a Mercedes car "had hit a chap".
He said "it was an accident" and the car had reversed and the driver -- Mr McCaughey -- had got out. "The man was distraught, he had his hands on his head, he was panicking," Mr English told the court.
The trial continues before Judge Gerard Griffin and a jury.
- Elaine Keogh

Ormus

thebigbiffo wrote: »

so basically you get off the crime for life so long as you're not caught within a 5 year time period ie. you're never really punished for your crime at all.

So long as you don't re-offend, then the slate gets wiped clean after a certain number of years yep.

Like penalty points. Or a yellow card. Kinda.

jluv

benway wrote: »

You are excused.

I can't recall track-suit wearing "scumbags" having lumped this country with a debt of €400k per person, effectively driving tens of thousands of young people away every year, destroying hundreds of thousands of livlihoods.

FFS.

:rolleyes:

I think he wants us to run down bankers instead of scumbags? Can't see any other reason for raising this again..

benway

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.

The reason I raised that "again", nine pages ago, was that Freddie59 didn't seem to get the damage that upper class "scumbags" have done to this country, so I answered him.

The reason I mentioned it in the first place is that people seem to be very clear about who "scumbags" are and how different they are to "respectable people". My point is that the dividing line may not necessarily be so clear.

"Scumbags" and "bankers" are not mutually exclusive terms.

If you don't get that, then bully for you. I dropped it because it's off topic, but I'm sure we'll pick it up again at some point.

Now, time for tiffin.

bonzos

I think its getting to the stage in this country where a few burglars need to get shot,killed etc....that is the only thing that these f@ckers understand.I bet Mr Nally does not have anymore vermin robbing his house!

jluv

benway wrote: »

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.

The reason I raised that "again", nine pages ago, was that Freddie59 didn't seem to get the damage that upper class "scumbags" have done to this country, so I answered him.

The reason I mentioned it in the first place is that people seem to be very clear about who "scumbags" are and how different they are to "respectable people". My point is that the dividing line may not necessarily be so clear.

"Scumbags" and "bankers" are not mutually exclusive terms.

If you don't get that, then bully for you. I dropped it because it's off topic, but I'm sure we'll pick it up again at some point.

Now, time for tiffin.

Welcome back! I do understand that "scumbag" can be used for a lot of different people. I just don't understand how bankers relate to the case in hand. However tiffin is more important than I..Enjoy!

qc3

http://www.independent.ie/multimedia/archive/01017/Daniel-McCormack-i_1017475t.jpg

Doesn't look as if he has too many years left to injoy his award.

Curly Judge

http://www.independent.ie/multimedia...i_1017475t.jpg

Straight out of scumbag central casting.

tayto lover

qc3 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/multimedia/archive/01017/Daniel-McCormack-i_1017475t.jpg

Doesn't look as if he has too many years left to injoy his award.

Not someone you want want your young children to wake up and see standing at the bottom of their bed though.

Sweetpea101

That man was found not guilty unanimously by the jury - they did the right thing - that man was out of his mind having found a scumbag in his house where he and his family were asleep - he acted without thinking and injured the right person - the law protecting the scumbag burglar is disastrous!

tayto lover

Sweetpea101 wrote: »

That man was found not guilty unanimously by the jury - they did the right thing - that man was out of his mind having found a scumbag in his house where he and his family were asleep - he acted without thinking and injured the right person - the law protecting the scumbag burglar is disastrous!

It was a majority decision 7 to 5. Very close indeed.

The King of Moo

Sweetpea101 wrote: »

That man was found not guilty unanimously by the jury - they did the right thing - that man was out of his mind having found a scumbag in his house where he and his family were asleep - he acted without thinking and injured the right person - the law protecting the scumbag burglar is disastrous!

It's fine to take reasonable force inside your own home, but do you see nothing wrong in the law effectively saying that it's fine for a man who, as you say, was out of his mind and acting without thinking, to drive around trying to injure someone?

You don't think it's remotely possible he might not have injured "the right person?"

jluv

I guess everyone's personality is different. Knowing myself if i was threatened I would feel very justified to do anything to anyone who chose to invade my home. They chose to enter somewhere that was a crime to do so,therfore I would not consider it a crime to react as I had not chosen to be put in that position. As for anyone who thinks the threat was over when he left the house,sorry,but I would feel threatened for a long time after.

benway

jluv wrote: »

I just don't understand how bankers relate to the case in hand.

Weeeeeeelllllll, they don't. But they do. Well, they kinda do. Hear me out on this.

It all started when I found out McCaughey was a property developer ... I mean, developer running over pleb in Merc and being applauded for it? There's gotta be a metaphor in there somewhere, right? Only there isn't. Unless there's some brown envelopes we don't yet know about ... and even then.

Once I'd established that I probably wasn't gonna get my grand metaphor for post-Celtic Tiger Ireland outta this, I had to try squeezing in the bankers to point out that "scumbags" come in many shapes and sizes, and that the dividing line between "us" and "them" may not be so clear.

Being serious about it, I do find the level of raw hate towards the clichéd lad in a track suit, doing pills, drinking Dutch Gold, on the dole, yadda yadda ... "scumbag" ... a bit unsettling, as if these people present the greatest single threat to decent folks. What makes it worse is the kind of language used - subhuman, vermin, no use to anyone, etc. I swear, I'm just waiting for someone to propose a final solution.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I wouldn't land any uninvited guest a box into the jaw*, and I have every sympathy for people who have been burgled.

But in my line of work I see the amount of honest people in this country who not only have the sheriff come to their house to take away their things, but have their house taken away from them. From what I've seen and the stories I've heard, I'm certain that's equally or more traumatic to a burglary, and involves just as much scamming and robbery as anything our worst "scumbags" get up to.

Worse still, it's happening on a grand scale, and it's officially sanctioned. I just wish there was this kind of reaction every time the banks chased down a widow whose husband had killed himself over unfeasible, and irresponsibly lent, debts. Or every time another young family is put out on the street through no real fault of their own. Or small businesspeople bullied and harassed by banks, before being put out of business.

All of these things are happening day in day out, and it's like no-one gives a fuc, but when the opportunity presents itself to put the boot into "scumbags", people are practically frothing at the mouths.

Of course, it would help if the media reported and spun these individual stories the same way they do with "scumbags", welfare fraud, public sector inefficiency, etc.

Just my 2c, like.

* must give myself sh1t for being an internet tough guy a few posts down.

Jake187

Its terrible that the bugular got money out of this.

Whats more sickening is the people who defended his right to. you should be ashamed of yourself.

dark crystal

benway wrote: »

Damages are supposed to put you in the position that you would have been in had the accident never happened - it's actually quite difficult to make a massive "profit" once all the medical bills have been paid, and lost earnings have been made up for.

But what if the 'victim' had not lost any earnings (i.e; unemployed) and had a medical card (no medical bills)?

Also, is there any liability attributed to the 'victim' for having placed himself in the situation in the first place?

Lastly, is the judge allowed to use their own discretion when awarding compensation? I mean, could he have found in favour of the plaintiff, but awarded him a perfunctory amount (i.e €1)?

LH Pathe

It's the image of this guy driving at him, like it's his robo suit on but outside that he's feeble and and he's just casually ramming lhis guy, with the excuse of 'wouldn't stay down'... Not realizing the profound damage might be doing from his lazy hole

Basically it was to perturb that in future. That became the real issue, not the burglar but worst excesses of society really, from either end.