Supreme Court orders Garda murderer be given remission.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Personally I am disgusted with this, he was sentenced to death but had a sentence of 40 years without remission imposed instead. Now he could walk free almost immediatley as the Supreme Court has ordered that he is entitled to be considered for remission.
If released he will not even be on Life license like other murderers!:mad:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0718/463249-noel-callan-court/

Cody Pomeray

Old and grey wrote: »

Now he could walk free almost immediatley as the Supreme Court has ordered that he is entitled to be considered for remission.

edit: I am overlooking the effect of the 22nd amendment to the constitution on the 1990 legislation. You're right. The President doesn't have to get involved, contrary to the High Court decision which preceded this case. Interesting judgement.

BeerWolf

Honestly, who are the court to consider for remission - that should only be given by the victims tbh...

DaveDaRave

jaysus 40 years.

you wouldn't get anywhere near that these days.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I don't see the big deal here.

All the supreme court are affirming is the right of this man to apply for remission, and the right of the President (acting on the advice of the Government) to approve or reject the application.Wrong!

If the President, acting on Government advice, feels there are no particular grounds for clemency or rejects any other factors which might justify an interference with the independence of the Courts, then there can be no interference with the sentence. They cannot remit. Wrong

The fact the State even bothered taking this case implies remission is un-likely. I don't think this prisoner is going anywhere soon.Wrong

Edit: seriously misleading thread title too OP.

I suggest you reread the article, the President has nothing whatsoever to do with the granting of remission, the Supreme Court have ordered that he be granted it at the higher rate of one third meaning almost immediate release.
This for a gurrier that was convicted of the Capital Murder of an unarmed Garda.
:mad:

Alun

Thread title wrote:

Supreme Court orders Garda murderer be given remission.

Old and grey wrote: »

... Supreme Court has ordered that he is entitled to be considered for remission.

Two completely different things.

SEPT 23 1989

DaveDaRave wrote: »

jaysus 40 years.

you wouldn't get anywhere near that these days.

If you whacked a copper you would

Old and grey

Old and grey wrote: »

I suggest you reread the article, the President has nothing whatsoever to do with the granting of remission, the Supreme Court have ordered that he be granted it at the higher rate of one third meaning almost immediate release.
This for a gurrier that was convicted of the Capital Murder of an unarmed Garda.
:mad:

I don't see the outrage. A lot of other murderers have had their sentences reduced or given early release and as such it's only fair that he be given a chance at the same.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Alun wrote: »

Two completely different things.

"Today the Supreme Court granted a declaration he is a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one month who is therefore eligible, by good conduct, to earn remission, including higher remission, under the relevant prison rules"

The Supreme Court have stated in their Judgement that he cannot effectivley be legally denied remission. He WILL be released with remission and the Supreme Court have also ruled that he meets the criteria for the higher rate of of one third remission meaning he will be released almost immediatley.

Mr McBoatface

Why should Garda Murder be treated any different to the Murder of an ordinary average Joe ?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

jobyrne30 wrote: »

Why should Garda Murder be treated any different to the Murder of an ordinary average Joe ?

The fact is under the law they are!
Murder of a Garda is Capital Murder.
I suppose it is because there must be some deterrant to prevent criminal shooting them down as they do their job.

Scotty #

The tread title is misleading.

The court ordered that he is entitled to remission (as is every other prisoner in the state), not that he be granted it.

As he is a model prisoner I see no reason why he would not be granted it.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see the outrage. A lot of other murderers have had their sentences reduced or given early release and as such it's only fair that he be given a chance at the same.

Murderers do not get early release they are granted temporary release with strict conditions, breach of any of those conditions means being returned to prison to resume their sentence, this happens relatively frequently. This guy on the other hand will now walk free, not on parole or life licience (temporary release).

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Scotty # wrote: »

The tread title is misleading.

The court ordered that he is entitled to remission (as is every other prisoner in the state), not that he be granted it.

As he is a model prisoner I see no reason why he would not be granted it.

Actually the effect of the courts decision is that he will have to be granted it.
Consequently the thread title is in fact accurate.

Old and grey

Old and grey wrote: »

Murderers do not get early release they are granted temporary release with strict conditions, breach of any of those conditions means being returned to prison to resume their sentence, this happens relatively frequently. This guy on the other hand will now walk free, not on parole or life licience (temporary release).

Well the fact that this man may get early release means that it does happen, it's just not as common as the other examples cited above.

Mr McBoatface

Old and grey wrote: »

The fact is under the law they are!
Murder of a Garda is Capital Murder.
I suppose it is because there must be some deterrant to prevent criminal shooting them down as they do their job.

I'm not convinced there is that much danger in using a speed gun...

I know that facts of the law. For the law to say one persons life is automatically worth more than an other person life is just wrong.

Anybody who commits murder should be in jail for 40 years plus, not just the murder of Garda. The chances are he won't be given remission anyway so i'll save my outrage for the families of other murder victim who's killers are set free after less than 10-15 years.

maximoose

Old and grey wrote: »

Actually the effect of the courts decision is that he will have to be granted it.
Consequently the thread title is in fact accurate.

No, it's not.

As it states multiple times in the article - He has only been granted the right to be considered and, as Cody Pomeray said, and as this is criminal jurisdiction we are talking about this falls to the President.

http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_Reform_of_Remision_TR_Parole_Oct_2012.pdf

The right of pardon and the power to commute or remit punishment imposed by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction are hereby vested in the President

Banjo String

Misleading thread title.

He's been considered for remission.

Scotty #

Old and grey wrote: »

Actually the effect of the courts decision is that he will have to be granted it.
Consequently the thread title is in fact accurate.

Doesn't matter what the effects are (though I do agree). The court ordered that he was 'entitled to apply for remission' not 'orders Garda to give remission'.

jobyrne30 wrote: »

The chances are he won't be given remission anyway...

He's a model prisoner. As such he must be granted remission.

Cody Pomeray

maximoose wrote: »

No, it's not.

As it states multiple times in the article - He has only been granted the right to be considered and, as Cody Pomeray said, and as this is criminal jurisdiction we are talking about this falls to the President.

http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Position_Paper_Reform_of_Remision_TR_Parole_Oct_2012.pdf

Actually Old and Grey is right.

There is a complex point of law called into question here.

At the time of Callan's original conviction, there was a constitutional provision which said that all capital murders must only be considered for remission by the President.

And even though, at the time of enactment of the Criminal Justice Act of 1990, art 13.6 of the Constitution prohibited the conferring of the power of the President to remit capital sentences on other authorities, this fact (surprisingly, maybe) does not render the relevant provision of the Act which effectively grants remission to Callan unconstitutional.

So Callan is eligible for remission and may be eligible for higher remission. The former has a quasi-automatic effect.

Banjo String

Misleading thread title.

He's been considered for remission.

Mr McBoatface

It is also worth pointing out that despite being convicted of murder he didn't actually kill anybody. Michael McHugh pulled the trigger on Sgt Patrick Morrissey as he chases them.

I seriously doubt he would have been convicted in the first place if it was anybody other than a Garda.

Radiosonde

jobyrne30 wrote: »

I'm not convinced there is that much danger in using a speed gun...

I know that facts of the law. For the law to say one persons life is automatically worth more than an other person life is just wrong.

Afaik it's only capital murder if the guard is murdered in the course of his duties, so while off-duty (say, someone who happens to be a guard being murdered by his brother or something) it wouldn't be. So they haven't deemed one person's life more valuable than another, just that it's a greater crime to murder an active member of the state's security forces (I think it would extend to other state servants in certain circumstances too.)

scuba8

jobyrne30 wrote: »

It is also worth pointing out that despite being convicted of murder he didn't actually kill anybody. Michael McHugh pulled the trigger on Sgt Patrick Morrissey as he chases them.

I seriously doubt he would have been convicted in the first place if it was anybody other than a Garda.

You really have not got a clue what you are talking about.
Joint enterprise is the reason he was convicted of murder. Sgt Patrick Morrissey was not chasing them at the time he was murdered. He had already been shot and was on the ground unable to move. McHugh ran back a considerable distance to shoot Sgt Morrissey dead.

Dyr

So he got 40 years even though he didn't actually shoot anyone. Interesting.

Angry copper thread is angry.

jonsnow

Radiosonde wrote: »

Afaik it's only capital murder if the guard is murdered in the course of his duties, so while off-duty (say, someone who happens to be a guard being murdered by his brother or something) it wouldn't be. So they haven't deemed one person's life more valuable than another, just that it's a greater crime to murder an active member of the state's security forces (I think it would extend to other state servants in certain circumstances too.)

I thought Gardai are never off-duty which is why they always have their badges on them?

scuba8

Bambi wrote: »

So he got 40 years even though he didn't actually shoot anyone. Interesting.

Angry copper thread is angry.

So by your logic men go into a bank. Rob it. Come out get into a car and are driven away. The driver of the get away car is innocent of any crime as he did not go into the bank.

Corkbah

jonsnow wrote: »

I thought Gardai are never off-duty which is why they always have their badges on them?

thought that was so they could get into nightclubs for free*

* = I joke I Joke .... not a garda bashing !

Mr McBoatface

Radiosonde wrote: »

Afaik it's only capital murder if the guard is murdered in the course of his duties, so while off-duty (say, someone who happens to be a guard being murdered by his brother or something) it wouldn't be. So they haven't deemed one person's life more valuable than another, just that it's a greater crime to murder an active member of the state's security forces (I think it would extend to other state servants in certain circumstances too.)

The deliberate taking of a life and the sentences handed down for it should not be affected by a persons job and if they where working it at the time. It is no greater crime to kill a man in his home during a botched robbery than to kill a Garda member chasing thieves after a botched robbery.

In all likely hood this man never would have been convicted of murder if the victim had have been a average Joe chasing them off his property. Because it was a Garda doing his duty the courts and justice system under political and public pressure convicted both men of murder, the gunman/murder who pull the trigger and his partner in the robbery.

Don't get me wrong I no bleeding heart-ed liberal, but the law should be applied equally and fairly for all members of society and not "more equally" for those with lobby groups and political friends behind them.

scuba8 wrote: »

You really have not got a clue what you are talking about.
Joint enterprise is the reason he was convicted of murder. Sgt Patrick Morrissey was not chasing them at the time he was murdered. He had already been shot and was on the ground unable to move. McHugh ran back a considerable distance to shoot Sgt Morrissey dead.

Yeah your right and like i said McHugh killed him not Callan, Mchugh shot and and injured the Garda then McHugh (not Callan) ran back to finish him off.

Honestly can you see joint enterprise applied in an other case involving a civilian murder victim, where one of the two criminal didn't use a weapon or strike a blow on the victim ?

Anyway he was convicted of murder and served more time than most, like i said I'll save my outrage for the families of murder victims who's murder are out in less than 10-15.

stoneill

jobyrne30 wrote: »

It is also worth pointing out that despite being convicted of murder he didn't actually kill anybody. Michael McHugh pulled the trigger on Sgt Patrick Morrissey as he chases them.

I seriously doubt he would have been convicted in the first place if it was anybody other than a Garda.

Forgive my memory of the case if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that he walked back up to Sgt Morrissey when he was injured on the ground and shot him again.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Deleted User wrote: »

Well the fact that this man may get early release means that it does happen, it's just not as common as the other examples cited above.

Wrong again, he didnt recieve a life sentence he recieved a death sentence which was commuted to 40 years on the then general understanding that he would not recieve remission.

Mr McBoatface

stoneill wrote: »

Forgive my memory of the case if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that he walked back up to Sgt Morrissey when he was injured on the ground and shot him again.

Sgt Patrick Morrissey was viciously murdered by Michael McHugh. Sgt Patrick Morrissey a good and decent man doing his job was first shot by Michael McHugh as he gave chase to Callan and McHugh. McHugh then executed him at point blank range.....

IMHO McHugh deserved the death penalty, Callan was a scumbag and a thief but he didn't shoot Sgt Patrick Morrissey. I don't think Callan would have been convicted of murder if it was not a member of the Garda who was killed.

However Callan was found guilty and served more time than most, even if his crime was less than some who are found guilty of manslaughter.

I don't actually give a f*ck about Callan, my problem is the courts and justice system who let those who committed equal or lesser crime out after much shorter periods of detention.

Karl Stein

jobyrne30 wrote: »

Why should Garda Murder be treated any different to the Murder of an ordinary average Joe ?

It is very odd. Is there any explanation?

Old and grey

Old and grey wrote: »

Wrong again, he didnt recieve a life sentence he recieved a death sentence which was commuted to 40 years on the then general understanding that he would not recieve remission.

It's doesn't matter what sentence he got, in your own words you said "Murderers do not get early release they are granted temporary release with strict conditions" which simply isn't the case. This man was tried for murder and his sentence was dearth. This was later changed to 40 years in prison and now he is justifiably trying to attain the same treatment that most other convicted of the same crime receive. If he does get out of prison, and he wouldn't be the first person to then it's clear that there is early release for some murderers.

Holsten

BeerWolf wrote: »

Honestly, who are the court to consider for remission - that should only be given by the victims tbh...

Are you joking?! Victims should have no input in sentencing or anything to do with punishment.

Cody Pomeray

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

It is very odd. Is there any explanation?

The offence dates from 1964, before which "capital murder" was a term not known to law in Ireland.

Apparently the Oireachtas wanted to get rid of the death penalty insofar as was possible, but took the position that the Gardaí do extraordinary work as an unarmed police force and had a special claim to whatever additional protection the law could give its members.

And that meant the death penalty, in the interests of law and order, was reserved for the Guards and named "capital murder".

After the death penalty was completely abolished, the term just stuck. The view also stuck that a Garda life (or dar I say, a Garda murder) is more 'valuable', and this is probably a view that persists to the present day in the civil and criminal fraternity.

The people view it as an attack on the state and there are criminal elements who perhaps view it as a mark of their defiance to an opposing authority. So the argument goes, we need to redouble our efforts to stamp it out.

theSHU

FFS

The judiciary in this country are pathetic. It's time to invoke the 29th amendment and start docking judges pay if they continue to act like this. This animal should only be let out of prison in a coffin.

Sunnyisland

A MAN entering his 28th year of a 40-year sentence for the murder of a Garda could be freed almost immediately after a five judge Supreme Court ruled today he is entitled to be considered for remission, including the greater remission available for good behaviour.


If granted even normal remission, Noel Callan will be freed by 2016 but the court also ruled he, who was described as a "model prisoner" was eligible for the higher remission of one third... http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garda-killer-sentenced-to-40-years-is-granted-early-release-29432209.html


.indo_survey>.wrap{position:inherit; background:#FFFFFF; display:block;}
The State had argued, when a sentence is commuted, the right to statutory remission is lost. A central issue in the case was whether Mr Callan has the status of a prisoner who has been "sentenced".
Today, the Supreme Court granted a declaration he is a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one month who is therefore eligible, by good conduct, to earn remission, including higher remission, under the relevant prison rules.
.indo_survey>.wrap{position:inherit; background:#FFFFFF; display:block;}
The court rejected the arguments Mr Callan was serving "a commutation" rather than a sentence.

Well should a man convicted of murdering a Garda be given remission ? He has served 27 years.

My own opinion is that if the man has shown that he is fully reformed and abides by all the states terms after 27 years inside he should be eligible for a supervised release.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

No. He was sentenced to 40years so let him serve 40years. Can't do the time then don't do the crime.

sparrowcar

Johnny Electricity wrote: »

No. He was sentenced to 40years so let him serve 40years. Can't do the time then don't do the crime.

He was 22 when the crime was commited which in my book made him a child in real life terms. He's already served 27 years and apparently is a model prisoner and completely reformed to point he is well regarded by the prison guards.

I would have some strict conditions to his release but wouldn't try and stop it.
If he had killed a citizen rather than a member if the Gardai would that make a difference?

Omackeral

While I think you're OP has some very well written points I am flabbergasted that you can consider a 22 year old to be a child.

The fact that a Garda was killed raises some interesting points. Should a guardian of the State be regarded as 'more valuable' (for want of a better word) than a regular everyday citizen when it comes to sentencing? Is it the case that these sentences should deter our society from becoming lawless, ie harshest punishments for those found guilty of killing our protectors.

On the flip side, 27 years is twice the normal amount of time served for well behaved lifers in this country. So perhaps that fact would appease those looking for extra punishment owing to the fact a serving Garda was killed.

And yes, life should mean life, but it rarely does over here.

Matt_Trakker

Omackeral wrote: »

Should a guardian of the State be regarded as 'more valuable' (for want of a better word) than a regular everyday citizen when it comes to sentencing?

No

Omackeral wrote: »

27 years is twice the normal amount of time served for well behaved lifers in this country.

He's done enough time imo. I can't imagine the Hell of being stuck in prison for 27 years. I doubt he'll ever return to a 'normal' life.
What he did was no doubt terrible and he must live with knowing he stole someone's life. But I think 27 years is enough punishment.

Sky King

If the Garda was a member of my family I would want him to stay there indefinitely.

BeerWolf

Omackeral wrote: »

The fact that a Garda was killed raises some interesting points. Should a guardian of the State be regarded as 'more valuable' (for want of a better word) than a regular everyday citizen when it comes to sentencing?

I'm guessing it acts as a 'deterrent' for criminals to retaliate against policemen.

maximoose

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056995404

Tipsy McSwagger

sparrowcar wrote: »

He was 22 when the crime was commited which in my book made him a child in real life terms.

In real life terms a 22 year old is an adult who knows the difference between right and wrong.

martinedwards

at the risk of starting a race war, there were several prisons full of police killers released under the good friday agreement.

din't see you Southies whinging then........

in the UK, good behaviour gets a 1/3- 1/2 sentence reduction as standard.

it gives the prison population a reason the behave and work towards an early release rather than rioting every night.

Sunnyisland

maximoose wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056995404

Dident see that sorry mod,s, I did search I swear :P

Sunnyisland

martinedwards wrote: »

at the risk of starting a race war, there were several prisons full of police killers released under the good friday agreement.

din't see you Southies whinging then........

in the UK, good behaviour gets a 1/3- 1/2 sentence reduction as standard.

it gives the prison population a reason the behave and work towards an early release rather than rioting every night.

Very Interesting point.

ImDave

The interesting thing from what I know of this case, is that he was sentenced to murder but was a passenger in the car/accomplice to an earlier crime. He didn't supply the weapon or pull the trigger. I didn't know one could be sentenced to murder in such a situation.

sparrowcar

To clarify my 22 year old child comment. I mean that at that age you are a child in life knowledge and still at a impressionable age. I know legally he is not a child.

To contradict myself, in my industry I know 22 year olds who command aircraft with 180+ passengers on board so I suppose it depends on upbringing and development.