Garda found guilty of sexually assaulting and sexually harassing female colleagues

Sir Humphrey Appleby

timmy4u2 wrote: »

My goodness you are wrong again. It was Shakespear in The Merchant of Venice.
And the accused was not a Sergeant either

You are correct on the phrase origin, where did I describe the convicted sexual predator as a sergeant?
I couldn't give a fcuk what the toy was, all that matters is that another dangerous sexual predator has been convicted.
The country and the AGS are safer because of it.

woodoo

I'm sure the people of Donegal would like to know where this guy is stationed? None of the papers mentioned it.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

woodoo wrote: »

I'm sure the people of Donegal would like to know where this guy is stationed? None of the papers mentioned it.

And if he was ever involved in the investigation of a sexual assault/ rape case, by the sound of him he would have bough the suspect a pint and swapped notes!

Cody Pomeray

timmy4u2 wrote: »

Of course there was an alleged incident(s) and there was an alleged offender and there was a number of accusers.
Those are matters of fact

No they are not. You misunderstand.

The court has come to a decision on all aspects of the prosecution. They are all decided, so there is simply no more "alleged" about the incidents, and there can be no more "alleged" in respect of the offender, whatever the outcome.

It is disturbing the the prosecution failed to get a prosecution on 70% of the charges presented to the court.

Is this because they failed to prepare their case properly, and that should be very disturbing for the alleged victims.
Or is it because they accelerated a "bit of banter and horse play" out of proportion and put the extra failed 70% of charges against the accused in the hope that some will stick. And that is a bad situation for the accused.

The criminal burden of proof is difficult to overcome, in almost any situation. The fact that it has been overcome, and yet you are defending the Sergeant, says more about you than anything else.

timmy4u2

My last post tonight because I made a resolution not to be on these boards at weekends around pub closing times for the same reasons that I would stay off the roads also.
I am not defending anyone. I am not happy with the prosecution and I believe that their methods have failed everyone in the case, the female accusers and the accused.
That should be clear.
And I told you sir humphrey already not to refer to him as a Sergeant as he is not. Nite.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

timmy4u2 wrote: »

My last post tonight because I made a resolution not to be on these boards at weekends around pub closing times for the same reasons that I would stay off the roads also.
I am not defending anyone. I am not happy with the prosecution and I believe that their methods have failed everyone in the case, the female accusers and the accused.
That should be clear.
And I told you sir humphrey already not to refer to him as a Sergeant as he is not. Nite.

He is the convicted, not the accused, and they are the victims not the accusers.
And I would love you to show where I called this convicted pervert sergeant, you cant because I didn't.

Femme_Fatale

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

BTW a pair of Santa Boxers is hardly a sexually suggestive toy.

Red silk boxers - it really is. I'm certainly not a victim-blamer or suspicious of any woman who makes allegations of sexual harassment (as has become fashionable) but that element of the story is strange, not point in denying it.

timmy4u2

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Red silk boxers - it really is. I'm certainly not a victim-blamer or suspicious of any woman who makes allegations of sexual harassment (as has become fashionable) but that element of the story is strange, not point in denying it.

It is strange from the point of view of the actions of the prosecution, when you take the whole prosecution into consideration, that they would put charges before the court that were so unprosecutiable that the judge had to intervene, with the comments he added and all but 70% of the other charges failed to get by the jury.
It is very wrong to put unprosecutiable charges against a citizen because, apart from the moral and legal implications this leads to suspicion of the prosecution case and invites gossip and conjecture.

This does not help the case for the accuser nor does it help the case of the accused.......and it askes the question if this was not a jury case would those other charges have been put before the court.
I think that they would not.
And then you ask the question why this was done. Was it incompetence on behalf of the prosecution or was it in order to get some to stick, a la mud slinging or to sow seeds in the minds of the jury that should not be sown.
Either way the victim will be the accuser or the accused and the might of the state will go unchecked

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

He is the convicted, not the accused, and they are the victims not the accusers.
And I would love you to show where I called this convicted pervert sergeant, you cant because I didn't.

Still waiting on an answer Timmy.

Fighting Irish

Gardai are humans too

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Gardai are humans too

That hardly excuses sexual assault!

Santa Cruz

Maybe it was a truncheon that she felt in his trousers

P. Breathnach

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Maybe it was a truncheon that she felt in his trousers

I might be considered a bit humourless in suggesting that the commission of a sexual assault is not a suitable basis for making juvenile jokes.

Santa Cruz

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I might be considered a bit humourless in suggesting that the commission of a sexual assault is not a suitable basis for making juvenile jokes.

You are on the After Hours site. You should know what to expect. No one is forcing you to view the postss

timmy4u2

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You are on the After Hours site. You should know what to expect. No one is forcing you to view the postss

So because it is after hours nothing is sacred or within the laws of the country.
Tell that to the accussers and the accused
I dont think either side will be impressed
I have a couple of enemies that deserved to be ridiculed and defamed.
I must start a thread on after hours.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

timmy4u2 wrote: »

So because it is after hours nothing is sacred or within the laws of the country.
Tell that to the accussers and the accused
I dont think either side will be impressed
I have a couple of enemies that deserved to be ridiculed and defamed.
I must start a thread on after hours.

Still defending the indefensible Timmy.
I told you already he is not the accused anymore, he is the convicted, and they are not the accusers, they are his victims, Legal facts, the jury has spoken!

Santa Cruz

timmy4u2 wrote: »

So because it is after hours nothing is sacred or within the laws of the country.
Tell that to the accussers and the accused
I dont think either side will be impressed
I have a couple of enemies that deserved to be ridiculed and defamed.
I must start a thread on after hours.

Maybe you would be better off somewhere else

Femme_Fatale

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Maybe you would be better off somewhere else

I didn't find your joke offensive but I'm not sure where you got the idea that After Hours is a free-for-all.

wexandproud

personally i would say there are 3 sides to this, the male garda's , the ban garda's and the truth. i know he has been convicted , but the christmas present does seem strange and how did he get them on two occasions into a swivel chair in a corridor and push them along? - by gunpoint. bit strange me thinks

TheBully

pharmaton wrote: »

does anybody else find this (if true) a bit weird?

Your just not kinky enough

Grayson

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I might be considered a bit humourless in suggesting that the commission of a sexual assault is not a suitable basis for making juvenile jokes.

You said commission. That sounded durty.

timmy4u2

wexandproud wrote: »

personally i would say there are 3 sides to this, the male garda's , the ban garda's and the truth. i know he has been convicted , but the christmas present does seem strange and how did he get them on two occasions into a swivel chair in a corridor and push them along? - by gunpoint. bit strange me thinks

I would say this is far from the end of it, whether it is because of an incompetent investigation, or the addition of padding charges or untruths the outcome is not satisfactory for all concerned.

Carlos Orange

Are the details of the charges and verdicts available online somewhere?
It would be interesting to see how the portions the media decided to highlight mapped to the charges which received a guilty verdict.

LorMal

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I feel sorry for his victims. One of them said she'd vomit in the morning at the thought of going to work and having to face the lecherous creep. That's little short of psychological torture.

I hope he does time.

Do you actually? He loses his job, will find it very difficult to ever get another, is publically named and shamed, probably ruins his marriage, will at the best be fined and given community service...and you want him jailed as well? Wow.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

LorMal wrote: »

Do you actually? He loses his job, will find it very difficult to ever get another, is publically named and shamed, probably ruins his marriage, will at the best be fined and given community service...and you want him jailed as well? Wow.

He committed sexual assault, of course he should be jailed, no question about it.

Santa Cruz

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

He committed sexual assault, of course he should be jailed, no question about it.

You cannot just have a one first all sentence. This Garda will lose everything through his stupidity. job, pension etc.

And what penalty do you propose for a woman who makes a false allegation of rape. Some Judges just give them a suspended sentence in case they offend the feminist brigade.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You cannot just have a one first all sentence. This Garda will lose everything through his stupidity. job, pension etc.

And what penalty do you propose for a woman who makes a false allegation of rape. Some Judges just give them a suspended sentence in case they offend the feminist brigade.

He was convicted of three serious offences, one of which was sexual assault. Anyone convicted of such an offence would lose their job etc but also expect to be jailed, why is he any different.
As to your second point, it has no relevance to this case.

lahalane

jonsnow wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/garda-found-guilty-of-sexually-harassing-female-colleagues-1.1581174

A serving Garda has been found guilty of sexual assault and harassment in a trial involving two of his female colleagues.

Garda Kevin Corby was found guilty of two charges of harassment and one charge of sexual assault on dates in 2010 and 2011 in Co Donegal.He was found not guilty of five further charges of sexual assault while another charge of sexual assault was struck out earlier in the trial.The three day trial heard graphic evidence of how the two female gardaí were both sexually assaulted and harassed by Corby.

Corby, who is in his 30s, faced seven charges of sexual assault and two charges of harassment but one of the charges of sexual assault was withdrawn by Judge John O’Hagan. The incidents happened simultaneously over a number of months in 2010 and 2011. The court heard how the married officer insulted the women about their sex-life and their weight.

The women said they dreaded going to work because of the alleged harassment and one of them even tried to take her own life. He jibed them about needing to “get a good ride” and not eating too much or they wouldn’t get a man.

The court also heard how Corby, on two different occasions, pushed them along a corridor in a swivel chair and pushed his groin up against them.
He was said to have pushed himself up against one of the women form behind and she could feel his erect penis pressing against her.One of the women also claimed that he put his hand into her garda vest on one occasion and touched her breast.

On another occasion, while in a patrol car, Corby put his hand on one of the female Garda’s leg and then moved it up towards her groin area and told her if her husband didn’t do it then he would.

However, the court also heard from three different male gardaí who also worked with Corby in the same station. One of the gardaí said he had never heard such remarks in his numerous years as a serving member.
Another said he told Corby to give it a break after he “crossed the line” with the female colleagues.

Summing up, barrister for Corby, Peter Nolan said the case was a “storm in a teacup” and “political correctness gone mad”. He also referred to the fact that one of the female gardaí had bought Corby red Santa boxer shorts as a present for Christmas – just weeks after some of the alleged incidents.
“If you are going to join the guards then you have to be able for a bit of banter. This is a ridiculous case for prosecution to bring before the people of Ireland.

“If we were all to be done for putting our hands on someone’s knee then we would all be in jail,” he said.But State barrister Patricia McLaughlin asked the jury that if it was their wife, daughter or sister, would they not think it was indecent.Judge John O’Hagan said he would pass sentence in January.He released Corby on his continuing bail for a probation, welfare and community service reports and also ordered victim impact statements.

Seems to be going around...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garda-sergeant-avoids-jail-for-sexually-assaulting-female-colleague-29337178.html

Bit frightening how much the debate in court sounds like a debate on here...

Carlos Orange

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

He committed sexual assault, of course he should be jailed, no question about it.

You see people get no jail time for rape or non sexual assault so I wouldn't be too surprised if he got no jail time. Punishing people with the legal system doesn't seem to be in vogue any more.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

psinno wrote: »

You see people get no jail time for rape or non sexual assault so I wouldn't be too surprised if he got no jail time. Punishing people with the legal system doesn't seem to be in vogue any more.

I would love some links to the recent cases in this country where a person was convicted by a jury of rape and received a non custodial sentences that was not challenged by the DOO in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
With regard to the sexual assault and harassment convictions, it is appropriate that a predator who committed several offences over a period of time should receive a custodial sentence.
Obviously his name will also be added to the Sex Offenders Register for the legally required period of time depending on his sentence.

Grayson

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

He committed sexual assault, of course he should be jailed, no question about it.

If I walk up and pinch someone bottom, that's sexual assault. Should I be tried and convicted. Yep. But should i serve jail time, that's doubtful.

I have that small difficulty with sexual assault. It covers such a huge range of possible offences from something that would have been acceptable on a Benny Hill sketch to the violent and brutal. Maybe we need to bring in a range of types from say one to 5. Plus give a jury the option to upgrade or down grade according to their verdict. So if they don't feel it warrents a 3, they can convict for a 2. or vice versa.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Grayson wrote: »

If I walk up and pinch someone bottom, that's sexual assault. Should I be tried and convicted. Yep. But should i serve jail time, that's doubtful.

I have that small difficulty with sexual assault. It covers such a huge range of possible offences from something that would have been acceptable on a Benny Hill sketch to the violent and brutal. Maybe we need to bring in a range of types from say one to 5. Plus give a jury the option to upgrade or down grade according to their verdict. So if they don't feel it warrents a 3, they can convict for a 2. or vice versa.

The definition of Sexual Assault is legally quite wide, that's true.
However the court is aware of both the nature of this offence and must take due regard of the effect it had on the victims.
A system of degree might well work.

timmy4u2

http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/mary-raftery/false-allegations-gardai-03feb07.php

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/garda-made-false-allegation-because-driver-threw-her-a-dirty-look-414975.html

http://www.feckthat.com/showthread.php?p=52266
http://childaware.net/alpha/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=419:garda-destroyed-by-sex-claim&catid=36:main-editorals&Itemid=2

timmy4u2

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=garda%20made%20false%20allegation%20of%20assault&source=web&cd=46&ved=0CDMQFjAFOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdebates.oireachtas.ie%2Fdail%2F2003%2F03%2F12%2F00058.asp&ei=mJF3Usr7C47y7AbOlIGQAQ&usg=AFQjCNHQjjjqRbYKUBvvzhe5nUYrJ20tGQ&sig2=QjJiGZIJXucOOuz_CaAMsAhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034621/
http://www.gardareview.ie/index.php/the-veil-of-anonymity/

http://www.radiokerry.ie/news/woman-apologises-to-kerry-priest-over-false-allegation/

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15366.htm

timmy4u2

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=false%20allegations%20of%20assault&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fdromore-false-allegations-sexual-assault-548768-Aug2012%2F&ei=GJV3Uoq0C4SQ7AbXkoGoBg&usg=AFQjCNH1QYUmCEb-59rfBWFPm31LghK-Rw&sig2=pRlHyLYeDhIxdN19c7I7vw
http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/accused/michael-fechin-hannon/MFHannon-BusinessPost03May09.php
http://www.educationmatters.ie/2007/04/18/false-allegations-are-ending-teachers-careers/
http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15366.htm

http://bocktherobber.com/2009/04/michael-hannon-innocent-of-sexual-assault/

And lest we forget Nora Wall

http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002003.html

Grand Moff Tarkin

Are the females hot is the real question we need an answer for.

Spamming repeated links about the same case, yeah, that definitely means all women are liars and never get assaulted
Jesus

timmy4u2

bluewolf wrote: »

Spamming repeated links about the same case, yeah, that definitely means all women are liars and never get assaulted
Jesus

Well mod working on a small phone screen has its drawbacks and you are totally off the mark in your deduction.
Nowhere does it suggest that all women are liars though that may be your assessment, but you chose to ignore the fact that women are shown in those links to have suffered injustices.
Those links are not spam, they are based on fact.
Your assessment is a great example of the shortcomings in the Jury system.

Is it better that two escape the net rather than one be falsely convicted.

The debate in the Dail on the findings of Senior Gardai says it all about what is politically correct, whether driven by fear of speaking out or by fear of failing to concur.

Fighting Irish

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

That hardly excuses sexual assault!

I was just trying to point out that this story is only really in the news because it's a guard

houseplant

I see this guy was sentenced to 240 hrs community service and fined €10,000