Dubliner kills two kids and walks free

Latchy

Fuinseog wrote: »

the Hungarians did not charge him with murder, but reckless driving, which is why he only received a three year sentence. its reassuring though to know that if I commit a crime within the EU I can hightail it back o Ireland and nothing will happen.

We need to nip that in the bud .

Meauldsegosha

Fuinseog wrote: »

the Irish court set him free

An Irish court cannot try and convict him for a crime committed in another jurisdiction. The Irish courts have interpreted the laws in relation to extradition which the case at hand now.

What he did was disgusting, he should be a man and go back to Hungary and take his punishment.

ronjo

Fuinseog wrote: »

the Hungarians did not charge him with murder, but reckless driving, which is why he only received a three year sentence. its reassuring though to know that if I commit a crime within the EU I can hightail it back o Ireland and nothing will happen.

I know they didnt but YOU brought the murder comparison in above

usernamegoes

It was reported that it was important under the previous extradition treaty that he didn't flea Hungry; I'm interested to know how he left. Was he arrested there and allowed to leave Hungry or what?

mike65

I suppose there is always the chance of Car-ma. ("After Hours Standard" approved harsh comment)

Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman called this a unique and unprecedented case and an appalling tragedy.
He said the case illustrated how a perfectly ordinary person of good character in a moment and without any intentional or malicious act on his part can become a suspect, then a convict, sentenced to three years in a foreign jail.
He said the case was relevant to anyone who travels abroad and especially anyone who drives a car while abroad.
He also referred to the "grossly abnormal period" during which Mr Tobin, who is a father of two children, has been under threat of forcible separation from his family.

Thats a pretty remarkable appraisal of the case. You'd think Mr Tobin had been in car park tip rather than committing death by dangerous driving.

---

As he drove, a car pulled out of a side street and on to the major thoroughfare along which the Tobins were driving. He thought it wise, as that car came closely in front of him, to pull into the only other available lane, that nearest the right hand kerb. This involved a movement to the right. After executing this movement, Mr. Tobin attempted to straighten up the car so that it could proceed in the normal fashion in the right hand lane. But the vehicle was suddenly and entirely unresponsive to efforts to straighten it up on the road or to apply the brakes

edit just seen the above, the supplier of the car clearly should have been questioned and an investigation taken place from the mechanical angle. Was it?

Fuinseog

hondasam wrote: »

You should have posted links for us to read the story. The problem is you think he should be extradited to Hungary to serve his sentence?

yes I do.

Fuinseog

mike65 wrote: »

I suppose there is always the chance of Car-ma. ("After Hours Standard" approved harsh comment)



Thats a pretty remarkable appraisal of the case. You'd think Mr Tobin had been in car park tip rather than committing death by dangerous driving.

he was doing 50 miles (80km) an hour. the report did not say whether or not he was breaking the speed limit. the report never said if he ever expressed remorse for killing two kids.

hondasam

Fuinseog wrote: »

yes I do.

Why are you so outraged about it?

After reading the link researchwill posted it was a terrible accident and he did not flee the country. Why can't he serve the sentence here?

ResearchWill

usernamegoes wrote: »

It was reported that it was important under the previous extradition treaty that he didn't flea Hungry; I'm interested to know how he left. Was he arrested there and allowed to leave Hungry or what?

I think it's all in the decision I published, but in short, the accident happened, he and the other passengers went to police station next day to give statements, he worked away in hungry, then his job moved him home he moved home. Then some time later hungry decided to prosecute, and did so with out him. The Irish courts have defined fleeing as leaving with the intention of avoiding sentence, he did not do that.

ronjo

Fuinseog wrote: »

he was doing 50 miles (80km) an hour. the report did not say whether or not he was breaking the speed limit. the report never said if he ever expressed remorse for killing two kids.

Christ on a bike.. Do you honestly think that anyone could not have remorse for killing to kids like that?? honestly?

Fuinseog

usernamegoes wrote: »

It was reported that it was important under the previous extradition treaty that he didn't flea Hungry; I'm interested to know how he left. Was he arrested there and allowed to leave Hungry or what?

he left before the trial a few months after the killing. the Hungarians were too trusting. when you kill someone with reckless driving you are not usually placed on remand, but summoned to appear in court.
he was conveniently transferred home before the trial.

I presume he is still driving around the streets of Dublin.

gurramok

hondasam wrote: »

Why can't he serve the sentence here?

Why should he be allowed to? The Hungarians judged that he was guilty of a road traffic crime hence he should serve the sentence there.

ResearchWill

gurramok wrote: »

Why should he be allowed to? The Hungarians judged that he was guilty of a road traffic crime hence he should serve the sentence there.

No he should nt, if you read the decision of the SC you would see that the trial in Hungary was a travesty, and it was nothing more than a accident.

gurramok

ResearchWill wrote: »

No he should nt, if you read the decision of the SC you would see that the trial in Hungary was a travesty, and it was nothing more than a accident.

So you trust the word of the Irish judiciary(a majority3-2) over the Hungarian judiciary?

Fuinseog

ronjo wrote: »

Christ on a bike.. Do you honestly think that anyone could not have remorse for killing to kids like that?? honestly?

he could have read out a statement of remorse or even issued one through a lawyer but he did not. the judge showed him more sympathy than the Hungarian parent. Hungary is depicted as a third world country where he could not possibly atone for his crime.

this is an injustice. it caused a few ripples about a year ago and was forgotten about then. this guy symbolises the rich paddy of the Celtic tiger era who went abroad and flaunted their money, people like him believe they can do as they please in a country they look upon as inferior. in this case they can and get away with it.

i have several Hungarian friends and have visited the country. things like this make you ashamed to be Irish.

Fuinseog

ResearchWill wrote: »

No he should nt, if you read the decision of the SC you would see that the trial in Hungary was a travesty, and it was nothing more than a accident.

how was the trail a travesty. you just cannot get a fair hearing from johnny foreigner? its a civilised country.

ResearchWill

gurramok wrote: »

So you trust the word of the Irish judiciary(a majority3-2) over the Hungarian judiciary?

The decision of the SC was on a very narrow interpretation of the relevant section of the EAW act as amended by the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2009, Harriman was the only one with balls to say what really happened.

In fact below is the relevant passage of the Act,

10.— Where a judicial authority in an issuing state duly issues a European arrest warrant in respect of a person— (a) against whom that state intends to bring proceedings for the offence to which the European arrest warrant relates, or (b) on whom a sentence of imprisonment or detention has been imposed and who fled from the issuing state before he or she— (i) commenced serving that sentence, or (ii) completed serving that sentence, that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Framework Decision be arrested and surrenderedto the issuing state.

10.— Where a judicial authority in an issuing state duly issues a European arrest warrant in respect of a person— (a) against whom that state intends to bring proceedings for an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates, (b) who is the subject of proceedings in that state for an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates, (c) who has been convicted of, but not yet sentenced in respect of, an offence in that state to which the European arrest warrant relates, or (d) on whom a sentence of imprisonment or detention has been imposed in that state in respect of an offence to which the European arrest warrant relates, and who fled from the issuing state before he or she— (i) commenced serving that sentence, or (ii) completed serving that sentence, that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Framework Decision, be arrested and surrendered to the issuing state.''

The first section was in the original act, the second section 10 was a 2005 amendment and in 2010 as well as other amendments the word fled was removed.

The SC decided in the original case that he had not fled, so he could not be sent back, then the legislator changed the law and the second EAW was issued, then the court was deciding could the amendment have retrospective effect so to speak. Despite previously saying it could not 2 members of the court said it could.

hondasam

Fuinseog wrote: »

this is an injustice. it caused a few ripples about a year ago and was forgotten about then. this guy symbolises the rich paddy of the Celtic tiger era who went abroad and flaunted their money, people like him believe they can do as they please in a country they look upon as inferior. in this case they can and get away with it.

i have several Hungarian friends and have visited the country. things like this make you ashamed to be Irish.

I cannot imagine the man is happy to have killed two innocent children but it was an accident.

ResearchWill

Fuinseog wrote: »

how was the trail a travesty. you just cannot get a fair hearing from johnny foreigner? its a civilised country.

1 the accused was not there, 2 the court made a decision in contradiction of the only evidence before it. In my opinion that's enough to make me think the conviction would be unsafe.

usernamegoes

Fuinseog wrote: »

he left before the trial a few months after the killing. the Hungarians were too trusting. when you kill someone with reckless driving you are not usually placed on remand, but summoned to appear in court.
he was conveniently transferred home before the trial.

I presume he is still driving around the streets of Dublin.

According to the SC judgment, it is admitted by the Hungry that he didn't flea. Un

carliebaby1

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Do explain to us how you arrive at the conclusion that he has walked free? The case is still ongoing, isn't it? wait until a judgement is given before you reach for your pitchfork.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Ummmmm!! I believe the first sentence in the copy says he won the battle against his extradition....so maybe hold off on the roll eyes till you've read the piece

And yes, I think an example would have been made of him if he was ordinary joe soap, and I find it very suspicious that they waited till the next day before going to the police station...waiting for the drink to leave the system perhaps??

ResearchWill

carliebaby1 wrote: »

Ummmmm!! I believe the first sentence in the copy says he won the battle against his extradition....so maybe hold off on the roll eyes till you've read the piece

And yes, I think an example would have been made of him if he was ordinary joe soap, and I find it very suspicious that they waited till the next day before going to the police station...waiting for the drink to leave the system perhaps??

Have you read any of the decision any of it, before you come on here and claim with no evidence that the man was drunk.

The decision actually says

"Immediately after the accident the emergency services were called, including the police. Arrangements were made for the care of the appellant’s child who, because he was seated in a backwards facing child seat, had not registered the dramatic events which had occurred.
When the Hungarian police arrived they began to take statements which were clearly of a very formal nature and which indeed, in the ordinary course of events, would have been part of the criminal trial record. The appellant and his passengers were shocked and distressed. The appellant and his wife, during their stay in Hungary, had become friendly with a young English speaking Hungarian woman whose father they knew to be a lawyer. They do not appear to have been previously acquainted with the lawyer himself. But they contacted the daughter with the result that she and her father arrived at the scene. The young Hungarian lady interpreted between the police and the Tobins and their passengers. The Tobins and the police had no language in common.
After some time at the scene, and no doubt in view of the shock and distress of the Tobins and others, the police suggested that the statement taking process continue the following day at the police station. They required the attendance for that purpose of Mr. and Mrs. Tobin and their two guests. The police specifically told the lawyer’s daughter, who was acting as interpreter, to come as well."

He spoke to the police straight after the accident he was there for some time waiting for lawyer and interpretation. I really have lost faith in people. Remember this mans wife was pregnant at the time of the accident, yet he stayed helped police answered questions as did his wife.

hondasam

carliebaby1 wrote: »

Ummmmm!! I believe the first sentence in the copy says he won the battle against his extradition....so maybe hold off on the roll eyes till you've read the piece

And yes, I think an example would have been made of him if he was ordinary joe soap, and I find it very suspicious that they waited till the next day before going to the police station...waiting for the drink to leave the system perhaps??

Where did it say he had been drinking? what was so special about him? it's not like he was a well know celebrity or something.

previous user

Fuinseog wrote: »

how is it that a Dublin business man who killed two kids aged 5 and two when his car mounted the footpath walks free?
it was on both RTE and TV3 and not once was there any expression of remorse for what he did.

if that had been Irish kids who had been killed there would be uproar.

Has he any links with Fianna Fail?

up for anything

He said the case illustrated how a perfectly ordinary person of good character in a moment and without any intentional or malicious act on his part can become a suspect, then a convict, sentenced to three years in a foreign jail.

He was speeding and while maybe there was no intent, by speeding he was being negligent concerning other road users.

He also referred to the "grossly abnormal period" during which Mr Tobin, who is a father of two children, has been under threat of forcible separation from his family.

Hmmm, so the permanent separation of the Hungarian parents from their two children meant nothing.

ResearchWill

up for anything wrote: »

He was speeding and while maybe there was no intent, by speeding he was being negligent concerning other road users.



Hmmm, so the permanent separation of the Hungarian parents from their two children meant nothing.

Where is the evidence he was speeding, the road had at least 3 lanes, there is no evidence that his speed was in excess of any limit, nor was it such that it was dangerous it was 42kmph according to the accused and 42 to 48 Kmph according to the prosecution, part of the decision says

"It is not clear how precisely the Hungarian Court came to its determination of the speed at which the car mounted the side walk, or how the speed is said to have contributed to this. It is a speed slightly in excess of that at which Mr. Tobin said he was driving along the road when the car pulled out in front of him. The airbags on his vehicle did not deploy and Mr. Tobin, through his lawyer, had suggested an investigation of why that was since they were meant to deploy on impact at a speed greater than 50 kilometres per hour. This does not appear to have been done, and as Mr. Tobin said without contradiction in his affidavit “I was unable to appoint my own expert to examine the car under the inquisitorial Hungarian Criminal Justice system”. This is plainly a significant matter having regard to the fact that the speed of the vehicle and the allegedly unexplained movement to the right, were the entire engine of the Court’s finding. It is important to bear in mind that the sentence was imposed for negligent driving causing death, which involved a prison sentence rather than for speeding or any purely regulatory offence."

For all we know and there is no evidence the speed limit on that road was 30, 50 70 or 100 Kmph. The Hungarians I believe have not said, if they did I may have missed it please point out to me if I have missed it.

Conchir

up for anything wrote: »

He was speeding and while maybe there was no intent, by speeding he was being negligent concerning other road users.

In the decision ResearchWill posted, it states he was driving at 42mph, however it does not say he was breaking the speed limit. Also, I haven't seen anywhere which states the speed limit on the road he was driving.

carliebaby1

ResearchWill wrote: »

Have you read any of the decision any of it, before you come on here and claim with no evidence that the man was drunk.

The decision actually says

"Immediately after the accident the emergency services were called, including the police. Arrangements were made for the care of the appellant’s child who, because he was seated in a backwards facing child seat, had not registered the dramatic events which had occurred.
When the Hungarian police arrived they began to take statements which were clearly of a very formal nature and which indeed, in the ordinary course of events, would have been part of the criminal trial record. The appellant and his passengers were shocked and distressed. The appellant and his wife, during their stay in Hungary, had become friendly with a young English speaking Hungarian woman whose father they knew to be a lawyer. They do not appear to have been previously acquainted with the lawyer himself. But they contacted the daughter with the result that she and her father arrived at the scene. The young Hungarian lady interpreted between the police and the Tobins and their passengers. The Tobins and the police had no language in common.
After some time at the scene, and no doubt in view of the shock and distress of the Tobins and others, the police suggested that the statement taking process continue the following day at the police station. They required the attendance for that purpose of Mr. and Mrs. Tobin and their two guests. The police specifically told the lawyer’s daughter, who was acting as interpreter, to come as well."

He spoke to the police straight after the accident he was there for some time waiting for lawyer and interpretation. I really have lost faith in people. Remember this mans wife was pregnant at the time of the accident, yet he stayed helped police answered questions as did his wife.

Where does it say this?? I didnt read this in any report, all the reports I read state there was only adults in the car.

Some poor couple have lost two of their kids in a freakish preventable accident, with no recourse and the person responsible in his homeland hiding behind "mammies skirt", but you, you've lost faith in people????? Oh dear!!! sorry to upset you there....way to make it about you.
the link I refer to is below

Mr Tobin (47), Offington Drive, Sutton, Dublin, is wanted in Hungary in relation to the incident which occurred near Budapest on April 9th, 2000.

In a European arrest warrant seeking his extradition, it is claimed a car driven by Mr Tobin – who was working in Hungary for Irish Life – mounted a footpath as a result of which Marton (5) and Petra Zoltai (2), were killed.

It is claimed Mr Tobin’s wife and two Irish friends were also in the car at the time. The following day, all four attended a police station and made a statement with the assistance of a Hungarian lawyer. Mr Tobin was later sentenced to three years in prison, which appeared to have been reduced to 18 months on appeal.

In this report it clearly states they went back the next day with a lawyer

And nowhere does it say he was drinking, it does say he was speeding, but not drinking, that was my surmising



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0201/1224311047720.html

Jester252

Everyone in this case is a victim of politics

ResearchWill

carliebaby1 wrote: »

Where does it say this?? I didnt read this in any report, all the reports I read state there was only adults in the car.

Some poor couple have lost two of their kids in a freakish preventable accident, with no recourse and the person responsible in his homeland hiding behind "mammies skirt", but you, you've lost faith in people????? Oh dear!!! sorry to upset you there....way to make it about you.
the link I refer to is below

Mr Tobin (47), Offington Drive, Sutton, Dublin, is wanted in Hungary in relation to the incident which occurred near Budapest on April 9th, 2000.

In a European arrest warrant seeking his extradition, it is claimed a car driven by Mr Tobin – who was working in Hungary for Irish Life – mounted a footpath as a result of which Marton (5) and Petra Zoltai (2), were killed.

It is claimed Mr Tobin’s wife and two Irish friends were also in the car at the time. The following day, all four attended a police station and made a statement with the assistance of a Hungarian lawyer. Mr Tobin was later sentenced to three years in prison, which appeared to have been reduced to 18 months on appeal.

In this report it clearly states they went back the next day with a lawyer

And nowhere does it say he was drinking, it does say he was speeding, but not drinking, that was my surmising



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0201/1224311047720.html

What I posted was part of the judgment of the SC of Ireland, it might be an idea to read all 4 published judgments but most importantly Hardiman J. also there was no evidence he was speeding according to accused he was driving at 42kmph the prosecution said between 42 and 48 Hardiman critiqued the Hungarian court because they made a decision about speed with no evidence before it. No where is it stated the speed limit in the ara but as it is at least 3 land road two lanes one way one the other I can guess it was at least 50 Kmph and possible 70 but I don't know so I can not say with any certainty that he was speeding.