Things that make you go What the F**k?

[Tony Baloney]

The judge seems like quite an operator.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/560459/limerick-man-who-started-fire-after-splashing-petrol-on-wife-and-children-warned-of-further-conduct.html?fbclid=IwAR1Xfwq-EDmAp68nStaOpEiV_sWulCP2Qxn6QDpBqsH-JaxKmaE-uVfECdQ

[David McKeown]

"Marshall was facing a maximum life sentence for the defilement charge, a maximum sentence of five years for the possession charge, and up to 14 years on each of the other three charges including, producing child pornography, distributing child pornography and using communication technology to facilitate the sexual exploitation of a child. "

"Marshall uploaded and shared 15 videos and two images on kik of sex acts involving children, including the infant boy, as well as images and videos of a number of underage girls that were shared with him by a third party whom Marshall did not identify."

The law needs to be tougher on crime in general but I see nothing here to give that judge a pass. If he saw fit to give that utter scum "credit" and thinks it's ok for him to prey on others in 4 years time, which he most certainly will do, then he is not fit to be a judge.

The judge didn't see fit to rather he is obligated by law as set by parliament too. There's good reason to afford credit in cases like this not because defendants deserve it or to condone their actions but because if credit wasn't given then defendants would have nothing to lose by running trials. Increasing costs to the taxpayer and much more significantly retraumitising victims.

Strangely there's been a couple of reports on the justice system in recent months talking about the necessity of credit but how terms like credit and discount for a plea shouldn't be used on the basis they don't accurately convey what's happened and the terms themselves undermine confidence.

I don't know what the guidelines are for these offences in the south and this judge may be quiet lenient but similar offending in the north would probably attract a similar sentence for a 'non dangerous' defendant. That's not though a reflection on the judiciary but rather on parliament.

[Look-Up!]

What utter nonsense. As if the judiciary give a crap about the tax payer when they're billing their time! And they're well fit to throw the book at people if they've gotten out of the wrong side of the bed for trivial crap.

This sc**bag raped a baby, filmed it, put it up on a sharing platform and would not co-operate with authorities in naming his buddies. The book should be thrown at him. If some p***k in government then wants to take issue with that and over rule the judge, I doubt they'd be too popular or get very far.
There are not too many crimes as stomach churning or vile as this one. Letting him walk in 4 years is a complete insult and more retraumatizing to the victims than anything that could have been said in court. And if we've lowered ourselves to the point of affording credit to the most depraved of paedos so as not to upset them, then the lunatics are truly running the asylum. 

[Milltown Row2]

Would lobbying the government over such actions not bring about change?

[tonto1888]

What utter nonsense. As if the judiciary give a crap about the tax payer when they're billing their time! And they're well fit to throw the book at people if they've gotten out of the wrong side of the bed for trivial crap.

This sc**bag raped a baby, filmed it, put it up on a sharing platform and would not co-operate with authorities in naming his buddies. The book should be thrown at him. If some p***k in government then wants to take issue with that and over rule the judge, I doubt they'd be too popular or get very far.
There are not too many crimes as stomach churning or vile as this one. Letting him walk in 4 years is a complete insult and more retraumatizing to the victims than anything that could have been said in court. And if we've lowered ourselves to the point of affording credit to the most depraved of paedos so as not to upset them, then the lunatics are truly running the asylum. 

Can't disagree with any of this

[armaghniac]

You do recall the guy who got the 6 year sentence (albeit subsequently reduced) for importing the Garlic from China without paying the right tax, and compare it with this type of sentence.

[David McKeown]

What utter nonsense. As if the judiciary give a crap about the tax payer when they're billing their time! And they're well fit to throw the book at people if they've gotten out of the wrong side of the bed for trivial crap.

This sc**bag raped a baby, filmed it, put it up on a sharing platform and would not co-operate with authorities in naming his buddies. The book should be thrown at him. If some p***k in government then wants to take issue with that and over rule the judge, I doubt they'd be too popular or get very far.
There are not too many crimes as stomach churning or vile as this one. Letting him walk in 4 years is a complete insult and more retraumatizing to the victims than anything that could have been said in court. And if we've lowered ourselves to the point of affording credit to the most depraved of paedos so as not to upset them, then the lunatics are truly running the asylum. 

I am in no way defending the sentence. It is reprehensible. The problem is. The judge does what you suggest and goes against the guidance from government and it's an easy and costly appeal with the potential for damages, further suffering for victims and further ridicule. Had this sentence been imposed in the north it would have been at the lower end of the guidance but still within the guidance. So in such a scenario was the Judge wrong to follow the guidance or is the guidance wrong?  Clearly the guidance is wrong and therefore the criticism of the judiciary is largely misplaced.

Also individual politicians or even ministers or governments can't really over rule judges in particular cases. Parliament can of course amend the law but by and large in criminal matters this can't have retrospective effect. But the law has developed over many years to water down or eradicate the executives role in judicial matters. Save for providing guidance on sentences which should be followed.

[Look-Up!]

What utter nonsense. As if the judiciary give a crap about the tax payer when they're billing their time! And they're well fit to throw the book at people if they've gotten out of the wrong side of the bed for trivial crap.

This sc**bag raped a baby, filmed it, put it up on a sharing platform and would not co-operate with authorities in naming his buddies. The book should be thrown at him. If some p***k in government then wants to take issue with that and over rule the judge, I doubt they'd be too popular or get very far.
There are not too many crimes as stomach churning or vile as this one. Letting him walk in 4 years is a complete insult and more retraumatizing to the victims than anything that could have been said in court. And if we've lowered ourselves to the point of affording credit to the most depraved of paedos so as not to upset them, then the lunatics are truly running the asylum. 

I am in no way defending the sentence. It is reprehensible. The problem is. The judge does what you suggest and goes against the guidance from government and it's an easy and costly appeal with the potential for damages, further suffering for victims and further ridicule. Had this sentence been imposed in the north it would have been at the lower end of the guidance but still within the guidance. So in such a scenario was the Judge wrong to follow the guidance or is the guidance wrong?  Clearly the guidance is wrong and therefore the criticism of the judiciary is largely misplaced.

Also individual politicians or even ministers or governments can't really over rule judges in particular cases. Parliament can of course amend the law but by and large in criminal matters this can't have retrospective effect. But the law has developed over many years to water down or eradicate the executives role in judicial matters. Save for providing guidance on sentences which should be followed.

Just one of the acts carries a life sentence. If a proper sentence was frivolously appealed then that would be a problem that needs further addressing later. The fix is most certainly not to allow judges threat scum like this with kiddy gloves and let them walk in 40 odd months time. Jesus Christ this filth is an absolute menace.

I'd be willing to bet my life that if there was the remotest possibility this POS was going to be next door neighbour to that judge, the sentence would be very different.

[David McKeown]

One of them carries a maximum life sentence but the point remains. Parliament set the maximum sentence and then set the guidelines based on that. I don't know what the guidelines in the South are for that offence but I do know that in the north the guideline is 8 - 10 years after trial which is 5-7 on a plea. This guy got 6 years of which he will serve 4 in custody. Had he received a 6 year sentence in the north that would mean only serve 3 in custody and 3 on licence.

If that seems too lenient then the issue needs addressed by parliament.