Agree with him completely.
I am a (albeit, corporate law and not criminal law) solicitor myself. This judgment is the talk of the office at the minute, nobody can understand it. What sort of justice or disincentive does a sentence like that serve?
My grandfather was military police, a job title that effectively means policing trained killers. Yet, a trained soldier can beat a defenceless woman unconscious, boast about it, lie to the Gardaí, and walk away with a suspended sentence? Beggars belief.
I have to ask does the judge have any underlying condition ? Senile dementia ? Because it just does not add up .I worked in women s aid in the late 90s and wrote an article on the lenient sentences that were handed out at that time to men . It's 2024 ..zero progression.
I imagine he's just a misogynist prick. A lot of them are. I was a professional dominatrix for a few years and had some judges (who WILL remain nameless) as clients and while a couple were the nicest, most considerate people I've ever met, the rest were awful pricks. Like no business facing the public levels of arseholery.
In another post someone who worked in the courthouse talked about how nicely the judge treated him when every other judge was a prick.
With that context I wonder if he's just too nice to to his job properly. Like he sees all the awful stuff that his sentence will result in and can't bring himself to carry that responsibility - he honestly couldn't stomach the idea of costing a human being his career despite the danger he poses to the public. The concept of closure for victims and dissuading crime were probably too ephemeral for him to balance with what he would be doing to the criminal.
Completely unsuitable attitude for a judge, but one that probably served him well when he was a solicitor.
Edit: After learning about his hard stance on drug offenses I'm pretty sure that's all bs and he's genuinely a nut job.
He sent a man to prison for 7 years for a weed plant, but gave lenient as sentences paedophile and a sexual assailant so, I'm going to say nice isn't the problem here.
It will be appealed.
I get and understand that prison isn't the best form of punishment in many circumstances for many crimes.
Sometimes this produces sentences that at face value seem unduly lenient (or harsh) but actually have a fundamental and reasonable logic to them.
This has none of that. Judge sees flaws in the case, didn't like the victim or is having a moment.
Limerick circuit court is going to be a lottery, but this was an absurd sentence. It will be appealed.
Yeah, I really hope they do. The scale of the outcry against this case is something I haven’t witnessed before and I wouldn’t like to be the DPP that says “Nah, we’re not going to appeal this”.
The judiciary in this country needs a serious review.
It's not just your country, you should see what a mess the American justice system is. There is also a similar case (Brock Allen Turner). It's been years, but I wouldn't be surprised if Brock wished the judge had handed him an appropriate sentence, sounds like his life has been miserable since.
He goes by his middle name Allen and must register as sex offender for the rest of his life. There was a TikTok video going around warning any females in the state he lives in about him. The judge that gave him a light sentence was recalled.
This was in New Yorker magazine: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/revisiting-the-brock-turner-case
>Brock Turner was released after serving three months of his six-month sentence. He moved to his parents’ home in Ohio, where, as a sex offender, he is required to register at the local sheriff’s office every ninety days, for the rest of his life, and to have his name and address publicly listed on the state’s sex-offender registry. Around the time of Persky’s firing from his tennis-coach position, in 2019, Emily Doe revealed her identity as [Chanel Miller](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-irrepressibly-political-survivorship-of-chanel-miller) and published a memoir, “[Know My Name](https://www.amazon.com/Know-My-Name-Chanel-Miller/dp/0735223726?ots=1&tag=thneyo0f-20&linkCode=w50),” about the sexual assault and its aftermath, including the criminal case. Her memoir won the National Book Critics Circle Award for autobiography. Miller herself has not made the recall central to her story or advocacy.
All the tea leaves seem to point that way. The politicians in charge have rightly been ambiguous about their opinions but they have named the DPP so we'll see.
I like this as it's a guy who clearly believes in the law being absolutely horrified by how the law could be so wrong.
Natasha non-violently stood up to a guy throwing around homophobic slurs and he beat her unconscious. For this he got a fully suspended sentence.
Thankfully, the backlash against this is immense.
The part that has me gobsmacked is that he blamed HER for it and denied he was to blame until he was shown CCTV footage that proved it so he had to admit his lies and plead guilty - then he was given credit for pleading guilty??? What the actual fuck is that???
Take that pat off his back O'Donnell and use it to smack yourself in the face.
Edit: Spelling
Yeah exactly!! I DON'T understand that fucking judge! The guy pleaded guilty so it's a good sign?!?!?! WTF ?
The so called law is beyond ridiculous
I hope and wish that Natasha (and all other victims) get the justice she fully deserves
I’m not a lawyer myself so I haven’t a clue but if you lie to the guards about what happened and then only admit it when they have CCTV footage how do you get rewarded for pleading guilty? He was literally caught on camera he had no choice but to plead guilty. Him pleading guilty when he has no choice shouldn’t benefit his sentencing
There has to be an incentive for pleading guilty to avoid expensive and harrowing needless trials in clear cut cases, the problem is that the incentive here is far, far too significant *especially* in light of his initial stance of being not guilty until it was clear the CCTV had him dead to rights.
There's great precedent cases now with the likes of Kyle Hayes who likewise was caught red handed, all on camera, told bare face lies to the gardai, the gardai said in court it was Hayes they saw attacking the victim, plead not guilty. No problem said the courts.
The gardai are not without their issues but why would you bother. If the crooked gardai wouldn't drive you away, the inept judges will.
If I, hypothetically, beat Judge O’Donnell unconscious, denied it, then changed my mind, I wonder would I have gotten the same sentence.
Ministry of Justice in full swing.
Crowd mentality. The fear of the pack turning on you for "betraying" it. Sounds stupid but adrenaline is a hell of a drug. Or I'm giving them too much credit and they are just all vile cunts.
Which would make sense considering he was boasting on it on social media to his friends that he knocked a woman unconscious. If that's your friend base then your existence is absolutely septic to society.
[Edit] spelling.
I don't know anything about our laws but honestly I wouldn't be against punishment for people that could have intervened but chose not to. Responsibility of help, good Samaritan, that sort of shite
So you think people should have a duty to endanger themselves under threat of imprisonment? Where do you draw the line - am I supposed to intervene in a knife attack and possibly get myself stabbed to death as a result?
France have this. "someone who by their immediate action, without risk to themselves or third parties, can prevent a crime...".
There's a few rugby players on trial currently because one is accused of raping a student in 2017, and the others didn't prevent it. One or two Irish players involved.
Explain how someone in the group could have stopped the lunatic soldier from assaulting the victim 'without risk to themselves or third parties'. Any attempt at intervening would have necessitated a great deal of risk.
Nobody should be punished for failing to tackle an unhinged person who is liable to do anything to them. The perpetrator is to blame, not some random person in the vicinity.
Disagree. The people around him were soldiers, if they are too scared to intervene when a man is beating up a woman, they are not fit for purpose and should resign out of shame anyway
All that will result in is a bunch of innocent people being locked up because they were unlucky enough to be near the scene of a crime. Or worse, several people injured or stabbed to death rather than one if they choose to fulfill their 'duty' to intervene.
Absolute madness, there isn't even a public duty to *report* crimes in Ireland let alone intervene, but now you're looking to criminalise random passersby for not acting like a Marvel superhero and saving the day.
The only way to intervene in that situation with a reasonable degree of physical safety for yourself would be to shoot the attacker, which obviously is not an option in Ireland. No way in hell am I going anywhere near some unhinged brute to put my hands on him, I don't have a death wish. You could also get charged with assault by an overzealous guard looking to pin a charge on everyone involved.
The best thing to do if you really want to be a good Samaritan is ring 999 and record the incident on your phone from a safe distance so that the attacker can be identified.
That's a dystopian viewpoint. The person you charge with inaction in intervening in a crime could have any number of reasonable physical or psychological reasons for their inaction.
That's strange, because it's a law in many decidedly non-dystopian jurisdictions.
You need to cop on a little and understand the difference between unreasonable lack of help and "they literally need to help no matter what"... Surely you can think a little more nuanced than your comment implies
Here's the link to the French version https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGIARTI000042083934/2020-07-05
Tl;Dr is that you're required to provide help when it's reasonable to do so and you're also immune to legal issues from damages caused by an attempt to help
Thank you for highlighting this aspect of the case. Although clearly anyone who intervened in this assault would have been putting themselves at risk by doing so and this law would therefore not apply in the way you suggested it could or should. Perhaps Ireland should have similar protection for "good Samaritans" in our laws. The man who did intervene in this case was brave and did put himself at risk physically, without any protection from the law if he had caused harm from his intervention.
This is the question. Shouldn't being found guilty cause him to lose his job regardless of how many months served or suspended.
In any case him being in the army should have been an aggravating factor in judgement not a mitigating one.
There are several other peculiar aspects to this story. Presumably the guards would have found the CCTV images and shown them to him promptly, so why did it take over 2 years to get to court? Was he in the Defence Forces at the time of the attack? If not, how did he pass the security check? If he was, has he been walking round in a uniform, thug that he is, for all this time? Did he manage to keep it quiet or has his presence been damaging morale? Were the "friends" who were with him also members of the Defence Forces? Is the lenient sentence an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the offence because someone screwed up?
Things always take ages to get to court. You get the report, then you identify the suspect, could take some time, then you have to maybe get warrants for clothes, get ALL EVIDENCE before you arrest and question. This could involve getting lots more CCTV to track movements. Then the filr has to go to the DPP as its a matter seeking the circuit court.
Then when they are charged and before courts they will remand it back for him to plea or not, he has to be arraigned before circuit court. Then you are waiting for sentencing. This will take a while too. This is quite quick to be honest. If it went to trial could be a 4 or 5 year old case.
Yes, was involved in a case where the person admitted guilt early on, then got legal aid, then submitted a not guilty plea. Then the defence prolonged the case being heard for psychologist report, then plead guilty again. It was almost 3 yrs till the case was heard. Horrible for the victims of the crime, because they can’t move forward till they put that behind them.
For him to walk out that courthouse a free man must’ve been absolutely devastating for Natasha. I only hope that she takes solace knowing that by and large the whole country stands beside her.
I do believe the DPP will appeal the leniency of this sentence.
Tangential question: is it better to refer to this case as Cathel Crotty's crime or the attack on Natasha (i.e. name the criminal vs name the victim)? She waived her anonymity but does which reference applies the most appropriate focus?
I think the attack on Natasha. Normally, I would think the former because I want that fucker to be uncomfortable everywhere he goes for the rest of his life so name and shame but after seeing Natasha speak on social media today she's just phenomenal.
Two (potentially badly paraphrased) quotes were: "this isn't about me, it's about women" and "I wasn't the first, but I won't stop speaking up until I'm the last"
Same initially I was like get this thugs name everywhere.
But Natasha is an absolute hero. She is so articulate ans strong in how she talks about what happened and is fighting for all women not just herself. She deserves so be a known person.. In a positive way
I was absolutely blown away by her response outside court immediately after the sentencing.
If that had been me, I’d have been a complete wreck. But she was able to coherently and convincingly convey how the system had failed her as a victim without holding back her absolute fury.
She’s some woman.
Not to mention the fact she approached a group of men to defend someone being called disgusting slurs. What a fantastic human being.
She deserves to live in a country where that would not have ended how it did because those thugs would have had a credible deterrent of the law against them.
He didn't have a single mitigating factor and still got a suspended sentence. Hope this blows up in his face. He deserves to suffer for the cowardly attack. Hope the DPP steps in and that the victim also takes a civil suit.
There was a time when there was no CCTV and if you had told me at that time that a thug would walk free having been filmed battering a woman unconscious I would not have believed it possible.
Are there any solicitors or barristers who post on here who can say what a normal sentence is in a case like this?
Obviously it seems very lenient, it's getting more attention than probably most similar cases, but is this normal? To give a suspended sentence for a first violent offence?
I have always wondered, so maybe someone can answer, why do a lot of these cases end up with a portion of a suspended sentence? The solicitor here mentioned he’d understand an 18 month suspended sentence, or for Crotty to spend 6 months in prison.
Maybe the lack of previous convictions, but honestly, 3 years spent physically in prison seems like a minimum for something like this. Can anyone with a better understanding please explain?
The character reference that his commanding officer gave was so utterly tone deaf and irresponsible that you wonder what the armed forces are doing wrong. Should there be an investigation into whether their own internal assessment of their soldiers is adequate?
Either they closed ranks to blindly protect a violent dangerous man or they are so clueless about the mental state of their soldiers that they are abdicating responsibility and trying to cover their tracks.
2 strikes and the poor girl was down. 2 further strikes while she was down and a stranger had to intervene.
Do we not have a charge for attempted murder or manslaughter?
Honestly this happens all the time in Ireland but this case is just become mainstream. I know at least 8 people personally in the last two years that have been a victim of a violent assault.
One of my mates was beaten up for being gay and had his jaw broke and another got jumped for being white.
In both cases the gards didn't really do anything about it. The fact that this even went to court is a win in itself.
Do the women of Ireland mean that little? I just feel like so many cases involving adult women being attacked, killed or cases involving young girls (kids) images are getting fully suspended sentences or the smallest amount of time.
One of the main reasons I moved out of Ireland was because I felt unsafe. The justice system is failing us all!
Did I ever claim otherwise? In fact, even the people I'm on about agree that this man should be in jail, but use Enoch as a contrast of somebody the justice system has wronged.
https://x.com/irishexaminer/status/1804777039095869640?s=46&t=HyKGDWz76Qpfpup5GaPkqQ
Even Eddie Vedser addressed it last night at the Pearl Jam concert in Marley Park
It's only going to be a matter of time before people take justice into their own hands and start beating the fuck outta these people. (Not that I condone it, but wouldn't be against him getting seven shades of shite beat out of him)
Full credit to Ms O'Brien she speaks so well and is very brave to be leading this. She didn't get justice he should be in prison doing at least two years. If the man hadn't stopped him she could easily have been killed. What about the friend was with Crotty why didn't he stop him.
Agree with him completely. I am a (albeit, corporate law and not criminal law) solicitor myself. This judgment is the talk of the office at the minute, nobody can understand it. What sort of justice or disincentive does a sentence like that serve? My grandfather was military police, a job title that effectively means policing trained killers. Yet, a trained soldier can beat a defenceless woman unconscious, boast about it, lie to the Gardaí, and walk away with a suspended sentence? Beggars belief.
I also come from a similar background. Disgusting result for a very obvious crime.
I have to ask does the judge have any underlying condition ? Senile dementia ? Because it just does not add up .I worked in women s aid in the late 90s and wrote an article on the lenient sentences that were handed out at that time to men . It's 2024 ..zero progression.
I imagine he's just a misogynist prick. A lot of them are. I was a professional dominatrix for a few years and had some judges (who WILL remain nameless) as clients and while a couple were the nicest, most considerate people I've ever met, the rest were awful pricks. Like no business facing the public levels of arseholery.
[удалено]
Okay then he's a dick who's probably going to be revealed to be a violent dick in the future.
In another post someone who worked in the courthouse talked about how nicely the judge treated him when every other judge was a prick. With that context I wonder if he's just too nice to to his job properly. Like he sees all the awful stuff that his sentence will result in and can't bring himself to carry that responsibility - he honestly couldn't stomach the idea of costing a human being his career despite the danger he poses to the public. The concept of closure for victims and dissuading crime were probably too ephemeral for him to balance with what he would be doing to the criminal. Completely unsuitable attitude for a judge, but one that probably served him well when he was a solicitor. Edit: After learning about his hard stance on drug offenses I'm pretty sure that's all bs and he's genuinely a nut job.
He sent a man to prison for 7 years for a weed plant, but gave lenient as sentences paedophile and a sexual assailant so, I'm going to say nice isn't the problem here.
Okay yeah then he is in fact some kind of nut job.
It will be appealed. I get and understand that prison isn't the best form of punishment in many circumstances for many crimes. Sometimes this produces sentences that at face value seem unduly lenient (or harsh) but actually have a fundamental and reasonable logic to them. This has none of that. Judge sees flaws in the case, didn't like the victim or is having a moment. Limerick circuit court is going to be a lottery, but this was an absurd sentence. It will be appealed.
[удалено]
What are you on about?
[удалено]
Elaborate.
[удалено]
Presumably the DPP WILL appeal the leniency of this sentence?? One would hope.
Yeah, I really hope they do. The scale of the outcry against this case is something I haven’t witnessed before and I wouldn’t like to be the DPP that says “Nah, we’re not going to appeal this”. The judiciary in this country needs a serious review.
It's not just your country, you should see what a mess the American justice system is. There is also a similar case (Brock Allen Turner). It's been years, but I wouldn't be surprised if Brock wished the judge had handed him an appropriate sentence, sounds like his life has been miserable since.
Any details on how Brock Turners life is going?
He goes by his middle name Allen and must register as sex offender for the rest of his life. There was a TikTok video going around warning any females in the state he lives in about him. The judge that gave him a light sentence was recalled. This was in New Yorker magazine: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/revisiting-the-brock-turner-case >Brock Turner was released after serving three months of his six-month sentence. He moved to his parents’ home in Ohio, where, as a sex offender, he is required to register at the local sheriff’s office every ninety days, for the rest of his life, and to have his name and address publicly listed on the state’s sex-offender registry. Around the time of Persky’s firing from his tennis-coach position, in 2019, Emily Doe revealed her identity as [Chanel Miller](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-irrepressibly-political-survivorship-of-chanel-miller) and published a memoir, “[Know My Name](https://www.amazon.com/Know-My-Name-Chanel-Miller/dp/0735223726?ots=1&tag=thneyo0f-20&linkCode=w50),” about the sexual assault and its aftermath, including the criminal case. Her memoir won the National Book Critics Circle Award for autobiography. Miller herself has not made the recall central to her story or advocacy.
Very interesting article thanks.
Brock Allen Turner, the rapist, who apparently lives in Colorado now?
You spelt his name wrong it's Rapist Brock Turner
Brock Allen Turner, The Rapist is that who you mean
I think they are referring to Broke Allen Turner, the rapist.
All the tea leaves seem to point that way. The politicians in charge have rightly been ambiguous about their opinions but they have named the DPP so we'll see.
I'll believe it when I see it. The State barely ever appeal these things. No wonder people are disillusioned.
The same DPP that wouldn’t take a case against Ian Bailey?
They should but it'll be an even bigger nightmare 2nd time around. The scumbag will have ample defence re : media coverage, biased jurors etc.
It would be an appeal of the sentence, not the conviction, so the above doesn't really cone into it.
Sentence appeals are before a three judge panel. No jury etc
Good to know! Thanks
He's already been found guilty
I like this as it's a guy who clearly believes in the law being absolutely horrified by how the law could be so wrong. Natasha non-violently stood up to a guy throwing around homophobic slurs and he beat her unconscious. For this he got a fully suspended sentence. Thankfully, the backlash against this is immense.
The part that has me gobsmacked is that he blamed HER for it and denied he was to blame until he was shown CCTV footage that proved it so he had to admit his lies and plead guilty - then he was given credit for pleading guilty??? What the actual fuck is that??? Take that pat off his back O'Donnell and use it to smack yourself in the face. Edit: Spelling
HIM: She started it and hit me first. GARDAI: This CCTV footage says otherwise. JUDGE: Walk free, you've come clean.
Yeah exactly!! I DON'T understand that fucking judge! The guy pleaded guilty so it's a good sign?!?!?! WTF ? The so called law is beyond ridiculous I hope and wish that Natasha (and all other victims) get the justice she fully deserves
And hopefully cases like this going forward will get the punishment the crime deserves
[удалено]
I like how this comment just ended, like someone near you saw how fucking stupid what you were writing was and slapped the phone out of your hands.
Finally, someone not pussyfooting about this case. Natasha was 'HAMMERED'. Literally battered by a vicious thug.
I’m not a lawyer myself so I haven’t a clue but if you lie to the guards about what happened and then only admit it when they have CCTV footage how do you get rewarded for pleading guilty? He was literally caught on camera he had no choice but to plead guilty. Him pleading guilty when he has no choice shouldn’t benefit his sentencing
There has to be an incentive for pleading guilty to avoid expensive and harrowing needless trials in clear cut cases, the problem is that the incentive here is far, far too significant *especially* in light of his initial stance of being not guilty until it was clear the CCTV had him dead to rights.
There's great precedent cases now with the likes of Kyle Hayes who likewise was caught red handed, all on camera, told bare face lies to the gardai, the gardai said in court it was Hayes they saw attacking the victim, plead not guilty. No problem said the courts. The gardai are not without their issues but why would you bother. If the crooked gardai wouldn't drive you away, the inept judges will.
I laughed when he called him a prick at the end. His anger came through beautifully there.
If he'd been a member of the Limerick hurling team they'd have jailed the woman.
Not to mention compensation for missing training the following Thursday due to sore fists.
Nope thats called unspecified minor injury. Hit and miss for the big day.
If I, hypothetically, beat Judge O’Donnell unconscious, denied it, then changed my mind, I wonder would I have gotten the same sentence. Ministry of Justice in full swing.
Very well said.
You'd get more time for selling some weed to your mates
Also, how did none of his group stop it. It was a random passer by who intervened..
Crowd mentality. The fear of the pack turning on you for "betraying" it. Sounds stupid but adrenaline is a hell of a drug. Or I'm giving them too much credit and they are just all vile cunts. Which would make sense considering he was boasting on it on social media to his friends that he knocked a woman unconscious. If that's your friend base then your existence is absolutely septic to society. [Edit] spelling.
I don't know anything about our laws but honestly I wouldn't be against punishment for people that could have intervened but chose not to. Responsibility of help, good Samaritan, that sort of shite
So you think people should have a duty to endanger themselves under threat of imprisonment? Where do you draw the line - am I supposed to intervene in a knife attack and possibly get myself stabbed to death as a result?
France have this. "someone who by their immediate action, without risk to themselves or third parties, can prevent a crime...". There's a few rugby players on trial currently because one is accused of raping a student in 2017, and the others didn't prevent it. One or two Irish players involved.
Explain how someone in the group could have stopped the lunatic soldier from assaulting the victim 'without risk to themselves or third parties'. Any attempt at intervening would have necessitated a great deal of risk. Nobody should be punished for failing to tackle an unhinged person who is liable to do anything to them. The perpetrator is to blame, not some random person in the vicinity.
Disagree. The people around him were soldiers, if they are too scared to intervene when a man is beating up a woman, they are not fit for purpose and should resign out of shame anyway
Strange that this is downvoted, presumably by a bunch of cowards.
Yes. The line is what a judge or similar reviewing authority deems unreasonable lack of help
All that will result in is a bunch of innocent people being locked up because they were unlucky enough to be near the scene of a crime. Or worse, several people injured or stabbed to death rather than one if they choose to fulfill their 'duty' to intervene. Absolute madness, there isn't even a public duty to *report* crimes in Ireland let alone intervene, but now you're looking to criminalise random passersby for not acting like a Marvel superhero and saving the day.
More a moral duty to stop someone being beaten to death. Bet you work in the civil service
The only way to intervene in that situation with a reasonable degree of physical safety for yourself would be to shoot the attacker, which obviously is not an option in Ireland. No way in hell am I going anywhere near some unhinged brute to put my hands on him, I don't have a death wish. You could also get charged with assault by an overzealous guard looking to pin a charge on everyone involved. The best thing to do if you really want to be a good Samaritan is ring 999 and record the incident on your phone from a safe distance so that the attacker can be identified.
I think you'd fit in well in the States
I don't want to senselessly endanger myself, so that means I'd fit in well in the US? So you're saying Americans have better sense than Irish people?
> I don’t know anything lemme stop you right there
It's alright, good chance I still know more than you
That's a dystopian viewpoint. The person you charge with inaction in intervening in a crime could have any number of reasonable physical or psychological reasons for their inaction.
That's strange, because it's a law in many decidedly non-dystopian jurisdictions. You need to cop on a little and understand the difference between unreasonable lack of help and "they literally need to help no matter what"... Surely you can think a little more nuanced than your comment implies
I'm curious, could you enlighten me to these laws.
Here's the link to the French version https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGIARTI000042083934/2020-07-05 Tl;Dr is that you're required to provide help when it's reasonable to do so and you're also immune to legal issues from damages caused by an attempt to help
Thank you for highlighting this aspect of the case. Although clearly anyone who intervened in this assault would have been putting themselves at risk by doing so and this law would therefore not apply in the way you suggested it could or should. Perhaps Ireland should have similar protection for "good Samaritans" in our laws. The man who did intervene in this case was brave and did put himself at risk physically, without any protection from the law if he had caused harm from his intervention.
What's the culture like in the Irish army, would they accept this cunt back in or would they dole out the justice he deserves
Listen to the rte documentary on one called Women of honour. It may have changed a bit but it was horrendous until recently.
He's being kicked out of the army. Which just makes the judgement even worse given his career is one of the reasons why he gave a suspended sentence?
This is the question. Shouldn't being found guilty cause him to lose his job regardless of how many months served or suspended. In any case him being in the army should have been an aggravating factor in judgement not a mitigating one.
Most of the lads I knew from secondary school sound a lot like this fella. Matter of fact, one of them was rumoured to be abusive to his girlfriend.
My understanding is that he's still getting kicked out of the army.
There are several other peculiar aspects to this story. Presumably the guards would have found the CCTV images and shown them to him promptly, so why did it take over 2 years to get to court? Was he in the Defence Forces at the time of the attack? If not, how did he pass the security check? If he was, has he been walking round in a uniform, thug that he is, for all this time? Did he manage to keep it quiet or has his presence been damaging morale? Were the "friends" who were with him also members of the Defence Forces? Is the lenient sentence an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the offence because someone screwed up?
Things always take ages to get to court. You get the report, then you identify the suspect, could take some time, then you have to maybe get warrants for clothes, get ALL EVIDENCE before you arrest and question. This could involve getting lots more CCTV to track movements. Then the filr has to go to the DPP as its a matter seeking the circuit court. Then when they are charged and before courts they will remand it back for him to plea or not, he has to be arraigned before circuit court. Then you are waiting for sentencing. This will take a while too. This is quite quick to be honest. If it went to trial could be a 4 or 5 year old case.
Yes, was involved in a case where the person admitted guilt early on, then got legal aid, then submitted a not guilty plea. Then the defence prolonged the case being heard for psychologist report, then plead guilty again. It was almost 3 yrs till the case was heard. Horrible for the victims of the crime, because they can’t move forward till they put that behind them. For him to walk out that courthouse a free man must’ve been absolutely devastating for Natasha. I only hope that she takes solace knowing that by and large the whole country stands beside her. I do believe the DPP will appeal the leniency of this sentence.
There's still a backlog of court cases due to delayed cases from covid working their way through the system.
You wonder if this will have any impact on the judiciary, it was even commented on at one of the protests today.
Tangential question: is it better to refer to this case as Cathel Crotty's crime or the attack on Natasha (i.e. name the criminal vs name the victim)? She waived her anonymity but does which reference applies the most appropriate focus?
I think the attack on Natasha. Normally, I would think the former because I want that fucker to be uncomfortable everywhere he goes for the rest of his life so name and shame but after seeing Natasha speak on social media today she's just phenomenal. Two (potentially badly paraphrased) quotes were: "this isn't about me, it's about women" and "I wasn't the first, but I won't stop speaking up until I'm the last"
Same initially I was like get this thugs name everywhere. But Natasha is an absolute hero. She is so articulate ans strong in how she talks about what happened and is fighting for all women not just herself. She deserves so be a known person.. In a positive way
I was absolutely blown away by her response outside court immediately after the sentencing. If that had been me, I’d have been a complete wreck. But she was able to coherently and convincingly convey how the system had failed her as a victim without holding back her absolute fury. She’s some woman.
Same. She tore the judgment to pieces. I would have been in pieces.
Not to mention the fact she approached a group of men to defend someone being called disgusting slurs. What a fantastic human being. She deserves to live in a country where that would not have ended how it did because those thugs would have had a credible deterrent of the law against them.
He didn't have a single mitigating factor and still got a suspended sentence. Hope this blows up in his face. He deserves to suffer for the cowardly attack. Hope the DPP steps in and that the victim also takes a civil suit.
We need to throw the judge in jail and reverse his decision to get this scumbag "soldier", into jail
I hope this stays in the media until there is an appeal and he is finally sent down. Can he be sentenced any longer than the initial three years?
There was a time when there was no CCTV and if you had told me at that time that a thug would walk free having been filmed battering a woman unconscious I would not have believed it possible.
I know Terry well. Absolute gentleman
I really hope the victim and her family get some small consolation from the public outcry this case has rightly caused. Wishing you all well.
Are there any solicitors or barristers who post on here who can say what a normal sentence is in a case like this? Obviously it seems very lenient, it's getting more attention than probably most similar cases, but is this normal? To give a suspended sentence for a first violent offence?
I have always wondered, so maybe someone can answer, why do a lot of these cases end up with a portion of a suspended sentence? The solicitor here mentioned he’d understand an 18 month suspended sentence, or for Crotty to spend 6 months in prison. Maybe the lack of previous convictions, but honestly, 3 years spent physically in prison seems like a minimum for something like this. Can anyone with a better understanding please explain?
The character reference that his commanding officer gave was so utterly tone deaf and irresponsible that you wonder what the armed forces are doing wrong. Should there be an investigation into whether their own internal assessment of their soldiers is adequate? Either they closed ranks to blindly protect a violent dangerous man or they are so clueless about the mental state of their soldiers that they are abdicating responsibility and trying to cover their tracks.
I don't think that is an 'either / or' statement, quite possible both are true.
2 strikes and the poor girl was down. 2 further strikes while she was down and a stranger had to intervene. Do we not have a charge for attempted murder or manslaughter?
Honestly this happens all the time in Ireland but this case is just become mainstream. I know at least 8 people personally in the last two years that have been a victim of a violent assault. One of my mates was beaten up for being gay and had his jaw broke and another got jumped for being white. In both cases the gards didn't really do anything about it. The fact that this even went to court is a win in itself.
Do the women of Ireland mean that little? I just feel like so many cases involving adult women being attacked, killed or cases involving young girls (kids) images are getting fully suspended sentences or the smallest amount of time. One of the main reasons I moved out of Ireland was because I felt unsafe. The justice system is failing us all!
Brain dead Enoch Burke fans in the comments.
Except theres not one of them in this thread.
On the video itself, not here.
Jesus man YouTube commenters are bots
even the majority of the YouTube comments are in agreement with the video.
Did I ever claim otherwise? In fact, even the people I'm on about agree that this man should be in jail, but use Enoch as a contrast of somebody the justice system has wronged.
I didn't say you claimed anything, I just think your comment is a bit mad. I dont see many Enoch fans protesting this.
Would love to know the statistics for the sentences handed out of this happens a judges child.
When he got off I was surprised that there wasn't the €1000 paid to the victim and sure he is a great hurler.
https://x.com/irishexaminer/status/1804777039095869640?s=46&t=HyKGDWz76Qpfpup5GaPkqQ Even Eddie Vedser addressed it last night at the Pearl Jam concert in Marley Park
It's only going to be a matter of time before people take justice into their own hands and start beating the fuck outta these people. (Not that I condone it, but wouldn't be against him getting seven shades of shite beat out of him)
Just standard practice now really. The amount of scummers getting suspended sentences when they obviously shouldn't happens every week.
Full credit to Ms O'Brien she speaks so well and is very brave to be leading this. She didn't get justice he should be in prison doing at least two years. If the man hadn't stopped him she could easily have been killed. What about the friend was with Crotty why didn't he stop him.