Soldier beats a woman unconscious, gets a great reference from his commanding officer, avoids jail.

now that this has gone through the civilian courts and now it seems hes up in front of a military court can the Army decide to jail him according the military type of laws or is it totally different?

Another glaring point is Crotty saying he knew he effed up and ran away, yet hours later he's on social media boasting about beating a woman unconscious. Deranged individual.

Is the maximum sentence for "assault causing harm" 10 years? It seems to be now, but back when this crime too place, it was 5 years?

If appealed, will the new 10 years sentence be the benchmark?

"was Mr Crotty a well regarded soldier in the DF"

"He had served without incident and had been well regarded. There had been no disciplinary actions to this point". Nobody would have batted an eyelid if Togher said that.

"scumbag and an awful soldier" is no different to "exemplary, courteous, professional and disciplined", they are just opposite ends of the scale. Togher could easily have chosen an objective middle ground without any censure but instead he chose to be glowing.

And his assault was “totally out of character? “ How can be know this? Does he hang out with Crotty 24/7? Does he really know him that well? Crotty is 22 or so. Barely lived..

Togher went too far. And that’s clear to me.. absolutely no need to either.

Justice system a joke in this country. Tax evasion for a couple of grand will get you a few years, under paying VAT eg. Garlic guy, gets you 5+ years. God help the welfare pension fraund granny in October, she'll probably get life !

But beat an innocent lady black and blue,resulting in with serious medical injuries plus mental health impact, and walk free.

I already admitted to that in a previous post, but there are some on the thread so aroused, that they cannot bear to have any sort of discussion on anything unless it's an echo of their own viewpoint.

I read that more carefully than you, it seems.

The obligation is to attend the court, to cooperate with the court’s obligations and to report back.

It appears that he was called by the defence in order that he could attest to the defendant’s good character and service. He did so without demur or qualification or even reference to the appalling crime to which the defendant had already pleaded guilty. It was only because the Prosecution Counsel chose to cross-examine him that he was obliged to say anything about it. (The Tánaiste says he was cross-examined by both Defence and Prosecution but I assume the Tánaiste mis-spoke because it only happens to a hostile witness).

But you may be right on one point. There is a great danger that Cmdt. Togher was acting within current military regulations. If so, the new Tribunal of Inquiry needs to extirpate this culture of cover-up. For starters, how many of his friends who stood by while he committed this horrific crime are also members of the Defence Forces? Imagine if their shameful inaction was no offence under our military regulations!

You can't just resign from the Defence Forces.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0621/1456015-crotty-reaction/

Tom Clonan gave his thoughts on the matter earlier.

Former Defence Forces captain and Senator Tom Clonan said Defence Forces officers are "witnesses for the State, they are not witnesses to fact when soldiers are tried for criminal offences," in civilian courts.

Senator Clonan said the use of the word "exemplary" that was read into the court record as part of the soldier's service record emanated from a "series of categories of your performance appraisal".

Senator Clonan said next week he intends to seek clarification from Minister for Defence Micheál Martin and from the military authorities "precisely what was the context within which these words were used" in court, which he said he was not "100% clear about".

The fact he plead guilty meant there was no trial, or witnesses or jury.