Friday's rant

[Donny B.]

Carney is a Pr**k of the highest order. Some of his sentencing in cases is beyond belief. How he managed to become a judge is beyond me.

I don't have any connection to Carney, nor am I particularly fond of the man, but there's absolutely no question but that he was an eminently qualified judicial appointee. He was universally regarded as one of the finest criminal lawyers of his generation.

There also seems to be a suggestion emerging, from certain media outlets in particular, that he's somehow soft on sexual offences. With the greatest respect to anyone who writes that, they obviously have no knowledge of the criminal justice system or the man's record over 3 decades on the bench.

Whether it's the system or the judges themselves, some of the sentences given to sexual offenders simply don't make any sense.

Letting them off altogether if they pay a few quid, giving five year sentences and less to rapists and pedophiles are quite common occurrences as well as concurrent (two for one) sentences.

Even when you throw in kidnapping, assault and an attempt to murder (see a certain Larry Murphy) that still only got a 15 year sentence and he was out after 10 (a third of the sentence is automatically removed due to "good behaviour"). That was Judge Carney as well by the way.

I'm sure you'll say his hands are tied etc. etc. but surely that means the system is badly broken.

Is it any wonder that so many people fail to report sexual attacks. There's feck all hope of justice in the Irish criminal system.

[Hippo]

Everyone know's Carney's name because he deals with a large (I'd say the largest) number of murder and rape trials in the Central Criminal Court. He's also been around for ages. There's a huge amount to be taken into consideration when sentencing, including issues such as a guilty plea (otherwise no-one would ever bother pleading guilty), any mitigating factors, health of the accused etc etc as well as aggravating factors such as extreme violence. Concurrent sentences will usually apply with multiple offences against the one victim. In this case the rapist actually got a sentence of 12 years which is longish for rape; I know, all but 3 years suspended. The really strange move was granting him bail pending his appeal, but it has happened before. It's a very difficult area, but the avenue is always open for the DPP to appeal the apparent leniency of a sentence to the CCA, so the system provides a potential remedy. Having said all of that, I have the greatest sympathy for the victim in this case.

[tackle-bag]

Whether it's the system or the judges themselves, some of the sentences given to sexual offenders simply don't make any sense.

Letting them off altogether if they pay a few quid, giving five year sentences and less to rapists and pedophiles are quite common occurrences as well as concurrent (two for one) sentences.

Even when you throw in kidnapping, assault and an attempt to murder (see a certain Larry Murphy) that still only got a 15 year sentence and he was out after 10 (a third of the sentence is automatically removed due to "good behaviour"). That was Judge Carney as well by the way.

I'm sure you'll say his hands are tied etc. etc. but surely that means the system is badly broken.

Is it any wonder that so many people fail to report sexual attacks. There's feck all hope of justice in the Irish criminal system.

I agree with almost everything you say. There are certain aspects of the system that are fatally flawed, totally antiquated or both. For instance, it has been repeated on countless occasions by the Supreme Court that the purpose of incarceration is punitive and rehabilitative, but never preventative. That position is completely divorced from the realities of modern crime. The rate of recidivism in this country is such that the primary aim of putting, say, a multiple rapist in prison should to get the monster off the streets for as long as possible.

[CiaranIrl]

Last year, 162 people died on Irish roads according to An Garda Síochána. Official statistics as to how many of these deaths involved alcohol aren't yet available, but the most recent studies I can find suggest that only 14% of road fatalities involve a party who is over the limit. The most recently available CSO statistics on suicide (for the year ending the 31st December 2011) suggest that between 500 and 600 people, primarily men between the ages of 15 and 44, take their lives in Ireland every year. Again I can't find statistics to indicate how many of these deaths occur in rural areas, but the prevalence of suicide among single men living in isolated parts of the country has been the subject of commentary by several Coroners and representatives of expert groups.

[I want to preface this by saying that I never even have one drink when driving, and wouldn't. I also wouldn't change the law.]

Beyond what you say above, I've often wondered what percentage of fatal accidents are caused by people just slightly over the limit. As in, I have often wondered what it would look like it you broke it out by percentage. How many accidents are caused by people who have had 2 drinks specifically, or 3, or 4? My assumption, and it's only that - an assumption - is that most of the 14% of fatalities caused by people over the limit, were by people that were substantially over the limit. In my opinion: The decline is road deaths is because of improved roads. Not the ads, not the laws.

I always think it's completely nuts how people think its perfectly fine to speed, but it is the definition of pure evil to have 2 beers and then drive. Speed is the cause of the vast majority of crashes here, but pretty much everyone I know speeds and brags about it. Like Tommy Tiernan says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ2ASt-d2UQ - I lives in the US for a while, and where I was, they had the total opposite view. Very little speeding, but lots of drink driving.

I think people have serious double standards about this topic to be honest. People shouldn't drink and drive - yes. But people need to slow the f%~k down as well, and that's much more important.

[paddyor]

I don't have any connection to Carney, nor am I particularly fond of the man, but there's absolutely no question but that he was an eminently qualified judicial appointee. He was universally regarded as one of the finest criminal lawyers of his generation.

There also seems to be a suggestion emerging, from certain media outlets in particular, that he's somehow soft on sexual offences. With the greatest respect to anyone who writes that, they obviously have no knowledge of the criminal justice system or the man's record over 3 decades on the bench.

Specifically which generation? Would it be Brian Lenihans generation or his father who fumbled around in government before him? Both highly regarded as some of the finest politicians of their generation.

This part "It could be viewed as subsituting one injustice for another" is the part that gets me. WTF! It's just so f*ckin tangential to the case at hand. Oh he's old and infirm.....therefore he's too old too serve a sentence for his crimes. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bonkers idea?

I can't recall a judge or member of the legal profession(ex. media) ever heavily criticising the Judiciary for their decisions or slating a judge but you wouldn't expect that as its not likely to get you promoted or get you business. "Don't rock the boat" is the modus operandi for appointments in the judiciary! Justice Peter Kelly alluded to it heresaying it was too "political". You'll note he trains his fire on the govt and not the bar council for playing up to it. For more on this see the IMO and that butcher Neary(who btw was also highly regarded by many of his peers).

[tackle-bag]

Last year, 162 people died on Irish roads according to An Garda Síochána. Official statistics as to how many of these deaths involved alcohol aren't yet available, but the most recent studies I can find suggest that only 14% of road fatalities involve a party who is over the limit. The most recently available CSO statistics on suicide (for the year ending the 31st December 2011) suggest that between 500 and 600 people, primarily men between the ages of 15 and 44, take their lives in Ireland every year. Again I can't find statistics to indicate how many of these deaths occur in rural areas, but the prevalence of suicide among single men living in isolated parts of the country has been the subject of commentary by several Coroners and representatives of expert groups.

[I want to preface this by saying that I never even have one drink when driving, and wouldn't. I also wouldn't change the law.]

Beyond what you say above, I've often wondered what percentage of fatal accidents are caused by people just slightly over the limit. As in, I have often wondered what it would look like it you broke it out by percentage. How many accidents are caused by people who have had 2 drinks specifically, or 3, or 4? My assumption, and it's only that - an assumption - is that most of the 14% of fatalities caused by people over the limit, were by people that were substantially over the limit. In my opinion: The decline is road deaths is because of improved roads. Not the ads, not the laws.

I always think it's completely nuts how people think its perfectly fine to speed, but it is the definition of pure evil to have 2 beers and then drive. Speed is the cause of the vast majority of crashes here, but pretty much everyone I know speeds and brags about it. Like Tommy Tiernan says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ2ASt-d2UQ - I lives in the US for a while, and where I was, they had the total opposite view. Very little speeding, but lots of drink driving.

I think people have serious double standards about this topic to be honest. People shouldn't drink and drive - yes. But people need to slow the f%~k down as well, and that's much more important.

Good post. I'm not sure whether the data you're looking for is available, but it would make for very interesting reading. I had cause to discuss this exact point with a number of senior Gardaí at an event in Templemore a few years ago, most of whom indicated that in their experience the bulk of crashes caused or contributed to by alcohol involved people who were a large multiple of the legal limit. This is only anecdotal evidence, but it stands to reason that the guy who has had 10 pints is going to get into more crashes than the guy who has had 2. Besides the fact that his reactions are impaired to a greater degree, if someone's brazen enough to hop behind the wheel while stocious, they're probably the kind of person that makes rash decisions on the road in any event.

Another curious point concerns precisely how accurate the roadside breathalyser and the station intoxilyser are at gauging people's ability to drive. I know they've been subjected to scientific criticism in the past. They're also not entirely accurate in performing their stated purpose. I was stopped at a checkpoint coming back from town a while ago, while acting as designated driver. The cop running the checkpoint seemed like a decent fella and the road was dead. One of my passengers asked to use the breathalyser just to see what the result would be. He'd had comfortably a dozen drinks over a long period and was visibly drunk, but blew a 0.01%!

[tackle-bag]

Specifically which generation?

I can answer that one for you. Lawyers practising in Ireland during the 1970s and 1980s.

I can't recall a judge or member of the legal profession(ex. media) ever heavily criticising the Judiciary for their decisions or slating a judge but you wouldn't expect that as its not likely to get you promoted or get you business. "Don't rock the boat" is the modus operandi for appointments in the judiciary!

It's pretty ironic that you make this remark in a post directed at Paul Carney, who is one of the few judges who has regularly engaged in criticism of his colleagues for being excessively lenient, both in open court and extra-judicially. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your comments suggest to me that you don't know very much about him at all. See the following article by way of example:- http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 04943.html

[paddyor]

Specifically which generation?

I can answer that one for you. Lawyers practising in Ireland during the 1970s and 1980s.

Ah that Ireland. He was undoubtedly a man of his time!
Point was the generational recommendation means little. What's more I'm not sure being a lawyer/solicitor/barrister will make you a great/good/able Judge

I can't recall a judge or member of the legal profession(ex. media) ever heavily criticising the Judiciary for their decisions or slating a judge but you wouldn't expect that as its not likely to get you promoted or get you business. "Don't rock the boat" is the modus operandi for appointments in the judiciary!

It's pretty ironic that you make this remark in a post directed at Paul Carney, who is one of the few judges who has regularly engaged in criticism of his colleagues for being excessively lenient, both in open court and extra-judicially. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your comments suggest to me that you don't know very much about him at all. See the following article by way of example:- http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 04943.html

Your right I know little about the man. Thanks for the article. It's ironic that you would use it as reference to his character and ability specifically this part

He cited Ad Vic's complaint that: "Lenient sentences frequently cause great unease in the public perception and a much-distorted message is given to society when judicial clemency takes place.

"Recent judgments have included reference to the Court of Criminal Appeal, giving the impression judges appear to pass sentence under the shadow of this court.

"It seems that between the defence, who have the advantage of being able to challenge a judgment, and the Court of Criminal Appeal, who can overturn a judgment, judges are being rendered almost powerless in their courts."

It's at the end of the article if you haven't read it. The sum of his complaint seems to be that sentencing has been taken out of his hands rather than any real concern for the victims as exhibited by this.

Judge Carney last year triggered controversy when he criticised grieving mother Majella Holohan for the unscripted remarks in her impact statement during the sentencing of her son Robert's killer Wayne O'Donoghue.

Again he's not training his fire on his learned friends just the system/govt. Thats at the start of the article if you only read the headline. In light of yesterdays judgement I get the distinct impression he went through the stats he gives with little real regard for the victims whose cause he was claiming to espouse. Generate a little bit of positive PR. We can only hope he gets no near the supreme court.

[TheBear]

Back to general ranting: call centre menus where there is no option which allows you to speak to a human. In this case, Vodafone.

[tackle-bag]

Your right I know little about the man. Thanks for the article. It's ironic that you would use it as reference to his character and ability specifically this part

So at first you were critical of judges for never criticising poor decisions on the part of their colleagues, but now that you've learned that some of them do in fact level such criticism, your grievance is with the fact that their views don't accord with your own?

It's at the end of the article if you haven't read it. The sum of his complaint seems to be that sentencing has been taken out of his hands rather than any real concern for the victims as exhibited by this.

Judge Carney last year triggered controversy when he criticised grieving mother Majella Holohan for the unscripted remarks in her impact statement during the sentencing of her son Robert's killer Wayne O'Donoghue.

Again he's not training his fire on his learned friends just the system/govt. Thats at the start of the article if you only read the headline. In light of yesterdays judgement I get the distinct impression he went through the stats he gives with little real regard for the victims whose cause he was claiming to espouse. Generate a little bit of positive PR. We can only hope he gets no near the supreme court.

That's a strage example to use to criticise the man. The entire country had the greatest sympathy for Majella Holohan's predicament, but her conduct at the O'Donoghue sentencing hearing is unjustifiable. Under the blanket of the absolute privilege that applies to certain statements made in court proceedings, she departed from her agreed victim impact statement and accused O'Donoghue of being a paedophile, notwithstanding the fact that no evidence whatsoever was adduced which supported such an accusation. A couple of media outlets decided to report the accusation and O'Donoghue's proceedings against them did not go to trial. Read into that what you will.

I want to emphasise once again that I don't carry any brief for the man, but I think that some of the wild statements being made in the media over the past few days are unfair and unreflective of his career as a whole. You need not worry about him being appointed to the Supreme Court by the way - if my calculations are correct, he only has around 24 months left before mandatory retirement.

[paddyor]

Your right I know little about the man. Thanks for the article. It's ironic that you would use it as reference to his character and ability specifically this part

So at first you were critical of judges for never criticising poor decisions on the part of their colleagues, but now that you've learned that some of them do in fact level such criticism, your grievance is with the fact that their views don't accord with your own?

Not sure he agrees with his own opinion.
2006 - 4 years for manslaughter of a child (not considered an attempted cover-up).

re Majella Holohan not saying I condone what she(or the media) did but it was the sentence I was pointing out. And yes we could have a lengthy discussion about why it was/was not the right sentence but we won't.

2008 - Statement to fellow judges that sentences are too light in particular for Knife crime. Including

Lenient sentences frequently cause great unease in the public perception and a much-distorted message is given to society when judicial clemency takes place.

2013 - 12 year sentence with 9 suspended for a father who raped his daughter and frees him on bail to appeal the decision as
"otherwise he might be seen as substituting one injustice for another"

This articleseems to suggest(in tandem with the end of the article you provided) that he's (as I suspected) a bit of a mickey-waver. This is my greivance!

[blockhead]

All those new discovery channel programmes, y’know (fish tank kings, sons of guns etc). What happened to all the science, history and nature docs. Why didn't they create a whole new set of channels for this bullshit and leave the interesting stuff on the original discovery channels.

[TerenureJim]

All those new discovery channel programmes, y’know (fish tank kings, sons of guns etc). What happened to all the science, history and nature docs. Why didn't they create a whole new set of channels for this bullshit and leave the interesting stuff on the original discovery channels.

+1 there don't seem to be any actual documentaries out there anymore. Eden is still decent for the nature stuff but a lot of the others most notably Discovery are just putting on show after show of some variation on American Chopper. Once Chopper hit that was it.

[sid]

So because Carney apologized and reversed his decision, I take it that that the "complex issue/lots of factors to take into account" line was just bullshit all along, the original sentence was just as ridiculous as it seemed, and our justice system *is* as farcical as everybody says? I'm shocked.

[Hippo]

So because Carney apologized and reversed his decision, I take it that that the "complex issue/lots of factors to take into account" line was just bullshit all along, the original sentence was just as ridiculous as it seemed, and our justice system *is* as farcical as everybody says? I'm shocked.

No. Giving him bail was the really strange bit. But absolutely, get that lynch mob out on the streets asap.

[gfo]

Just to be Devil's advocate, if Paul Carney is getting flak for soft sentencing on 6/7 cases, does it not imply that he's not lenient in sentencing in all the cases you don't hear about?




Anyway, my rant:

"Please fill out the application form and send it back along with a copy of your CV"

Application form has sections asking about job history, education and references.
What the frig do you think I have in my CV if you're asking for both?!

[Donny B.]

Anyway, my rant:

"Please fill out the application form and send it back along with a copy of your CV"

Application form has sections asking about job history, education and references.
What the frig do you think I have in my CV if you're asking for both?!

Yep, you're basically copying down the stuff that's already on your CV. Particularly irritating is when employment agencies (that probably won't do a thing for you anyway) ask you to fill out these massive forms.

[Peg Leg]

Some Fucknut creamed the side of my father in-laws new car and drove off. It's 2 weeks old and his first ever brand new car! Furthermore there are stickers on the front and rear windows stating "Fire personnel on call"......... How can you drive away from damaging a fireman's car????

I can not describe my rage right now!!

[Donny B.]

Some Fucknut creamed the side of my father in-laws new car and drove off. It's 2 weeks old and his first ever brand new car! Furthermore there are stickers on the front and rear windows stating "Fire personnel on call"......... How can you drive away from damaging a fireman's car????

I can not describe my rage right now!!

b$&%@#ds!

Happened to me in the car park of the gym. Damage wasn't that bad, but still annoying as hell.

[AwayTheWell]

All those new discovery channel programmes, y’know (fish tank kings, sons of guns etc). What happened to all the science, history and nature docs. Why didn't they create a whole new set of channels for this bullshit and leave the interesting stuff on the original discovery channels.

+1 there don't seem to be any actual documentaries out there anymore. Eden is still decent for the nature stuff but a lot of the others most notably Discovery are just putting on show after show of some variation on American Chopper. Once Chopper hit that was it.

The History channel used to be great about 10 years, even if it was predominantly focused on Hitler, at least it filled its remit of being a channel based on History. Now it seems to be 90% packed with shows like Pawn Stars, Ice Pick Truck Drivers and the like.