Reclaim Streets case garda given one-month sentence

by ah jaysus Fri Jan 14, 2005 17:20

sad.

And the guy who was seen beating the stuffing out of people on the national news got off scot free.

this one is de fall guy

by Beowulf Fri Jan 14, 2005 18:12

I hope the DPP appeals the leniency of the sentence.

by pc Fri Jan 14, 2005 18:34

available?

i knwo peopel settle things out of court for money all the time but I've never heard someone _offer_ a judge money instead of a sentence

by pat c Fri Jan 14, 2005 19:24

i dont think he was trying to bribe the judge! its not unusual for people to turn up in court with money and either offer it to the aggrieved party or as a donation to charity. as the cop was maintaining his innocence, i reckon he was advised to just offer a donation to charity.

emmet can still sue the cops & state for damages and this conviction of the cop helps any civil case he takes.

the dpp can appeal the leniency of a sentence passed by the circuit court. while it is the policy of the dpp not to comment on individual sentences... blah, blah..
you could always bring the case to the attention of the dpp and suggest that he consider appealing the leniency of the sentence.

"Directing Division

The Director of Public Prosecutions,
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions,
14 - 16 Merrion Street,
Dublin 2,
Ireland.

Tel: + 353 1 678 9222
Fax: + 353 1 661 0915 "

"E-mail

Please note that for reasons of confidentiality the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot accept correspondence relating to criminal prosecution files by e-mail. Any correspondence relating to criminal prosecution files should be in writing and forwarded by post to 14 - 16 Merrion Street as outlined above.

Queries of a general nature can be e-mailed to:
E-Mail: [email protected] "

by pc Fri Jan 14, 2005 20:44

well I wasn't suggesting he was bribing either but I thought the Judge order fines or donations rather then lawyers openly suggesting such....

by Yogi Fri Jan 14, 2005 22:40

Firstly, It is very common that a defendant makes an offer to donate an amount to a charity of the choice of the Court, as an act of apology.

Secondly, with regard to
"the leniency of the sentence" in fact it is quite the opposite. The DPP received a report on the video evidence by a third party in September 2002 stating that Paul Daly did not cause any harm to Bunting and also Bunting's statement cleared him. The DPP had no evidence to persue Daly in the Criminal Court under a section 3 offense.

This case should have been heard by the District Court as no harm was caused by Daly to Bunting. A Section 2 offense has no provision for a criminal conviction, and jail sentance.

by R. Isible Fri Jan 14, 2005 22:51

What is the definition of "harm" here? It seems this is being used in a very technical manner. If I smack some young fella with a stick do I get to claim that I'm not causing "harm" if he can't show that he has broken ribs? Or what happens if he goes to a psychologist to document his repeated nightmares about big thick feckers dressed in blue hitting him with sticks while judges egg them on from the bench? Can he claim that's harm?

How about I punch a guard in the bread-basket and leave no bruising: does that mean that I escape the charge of causing "harm"?

Any legal eagle insight gratefully received.

by Yogi Sat Jan 15, 2005 01:53

R. Isible

Daly was convicted on Section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who without lawful excuse intentionally or recklessly directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another.

No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not
know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.


Daly was found not guilty by 11 jurors of Section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

Assault causing harm.

3.— A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty
of an offence.

"harm" means harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness


To answer your questions:

"If I smack some young fella with a stick do I get to claim that I'm not causing "harm" if he can't show that he has broken ribs?"
NO

"what happens if he goes to a psychologist to document his repeated nightmares about big thick feckers dressed in blue hitting him with sticks while judges egg them on from the bench? Can he claim that's harm?"
YES - If he can prove that the attack from one individual caused these nightmares. But in this case if Bunting is experiencing such dreams most psychologists, etc. would attribute it to the Garda who caused his head injury, not the one who hit him on the leg.

"How about I punch a guard in the bread-basket and leave no bruising: does that mean that I escape the charge of causing "harm"? "

I wouldn't advise it, you'd probally have a few big thick feckers dressed in blue hitting you with sticks

and I believe there getting stun guns


I strongly agree with "ah jaysus" post earlier. Daly was the fall guy and How did Corcran (the garda in the news going ape) get off??? Another big unanswered question who was this unknown Garda who caused injury to Bunting.

by pc Sat Jan 15, 2005 02:03

I strongly agree with "ah jaysus" post earlier. Daly was the fall guy and How did Corcran (the garda in the news going ape) get off??? Another big unanswered question who was this unknown Garda who caused injury to Bunting.

to quote GRA rep PJ Stone Donal Concoran is some sort of hero and the gardai proud to have him.

but this raises a good question about censure for the gardai as an organisation which unlike a gathering of people on the street is an actually legal body and has sworn to keep the peace...

2 yrs later still no enquiry, no independent complaint board...

by Use the loaf Sat Jan 15, 2005 02:41

How about someone punches one or two of these clowns called 'judges' in the breadbasket. Would that produce quicker results in having these big thickos in blue brought to heel?

by R. Isible Sat Jan 15, 2005 03:00

You say: "YES - If he can prove that the attack from one individual caused these nightmares. But in this case if Bunting is experiencing such dreams most psychologists, etc. would attribute it to the Garda who caused his head injury, not the one who hit him on the leg."

If there had only been a Garda hitting the witness for the prosecution on the leg then I'd imaging that that witness would still find it traumatic. I know I'd find myself intimidated from turning up to public areas if I knew that some thug licensed by the state to keep the peace was allowed to smack me on the leg because he felt like it. You've got to wonder what on earth "Community Policing" is, when you've got a scumbag like this being recommended for it especially.

The fact that the animal Corcoran got off shouldn't mean that this fool gets a commensurate sentence: otherwise the judge will have to start giving him 3000 euros. (Come to think of it Judge Judy (sorry Murphy) did take note of the fact that the poor chappie was "traumatised".

by Fozie bear Sat Jan 15, 2005 03:28

Corcoran got off his first two of his three assaults , because it was corcoran's word againist the protestors and frankly an irish jury will always side with a garda. The third captured on camera and during examination corcoran admitted using unnecessary force, depsite this the jurt aquited him. This aquitting was reacted to with disbelieve by both the GCB/DPP and the assemblied press. It's worth pointing out that the Corcoran team had two jurors dismissed because frankly they weren't the kind of jury that a accused garda wants (middle aged PD voting types)

Now, The other garda who actually injuried Bunting. Despite having the incident covered by three camera angles, and a forensic video expert brought over from the uk. The defense presented another video expert who used the defense of reasonable doubt that it could not be proved that the accused gardai was the actual garda accused of the assault commited it. The jury aqquited because of this doubt.

This has been the tactic is all trials, try and have the video evidence thrown out before it's admitted, then cast doubt on the identification process (essentially saying "yes the witness was hit by a garda" but PROVE it was this garda") and finally the garda and his fellow officers will paint a lurid picture of crazied anarchist going for them, and in the heat of the moment, they might have accidently hit a innocent person in the midst of this, an act they're profoundly sorry for.

Waka Waka Waka

by Fozie bear Sat Jan 15, 2005 03:32

if you think Daly is bad being a "community policeman"

Corcoran is a member of the victim support unity.

Wakka wakka....nah the real fozie never made jokes that bad.

by oulgammyleg Sat Jan 15, 2005 03:45

"the Corcoran team had two jurors dismissed because frankly they weren't the kind of jury that a accused garda wants (middle aged PD voting types)"

Wow! Now that IS prejudice.
They could just as easily be republican voters, socialist voters, or anarchists.

Now the guards and/or the prosecution 'service' may have that kind of info on a lot of people, but where is your evidence that those two jurors fitted that description?
Bit of age prejudice there too. Do not assume that someone in any particular age group will automatically fall into a particular voting (or non-voting) group.

by Faith Nomore Sat Jan 15, 2005 04:19

Bunting was lying prostrate on the ground when Daly assaulted him-check the video evidence!The leniency of this conviction HAS to be appealed.
'LET TRUTH BE KNOWN THOUGH THE HEAVENS FALL'

by Yogi Sat Jan 15, 2005 05:06

R. Isible I can only assume by your comments you know very little of the events of that day, the legal system and the following cases.

Its all about evidence, if the DPP cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that harm came to Bunting by Daly he is innocent of causing harm, according to the law.

He was found guilty for hitting him on the leg.

The purpose of the legal system is to punish individuals, according to the crime they are convicted of.

With regard to your comment:
"The fact that the animal Corcoran got off shouldn't mean that this fool gets a commensurate sentence"

I agree but the fact as mentioned above, is that he hit Bunting once, which Daly admitted to. The DPP or even Bunting could not prove nor did they try to prove harm was inflicted it was the DPP who requested the lessor charge.

by A Dolf Sat Jan 15, 2005 05:46

All those not in uniform are mere chaff, .We too started as a tiny minority but in time the Nation and millions came to heel. Your action will inspire others despite it's rather incompetent execution.A lax establishment remain oblivious to your/our intentions and history as we know repeats itself.Your influence in the community should bear fruit.Auf wiederzen.

by yoyo Sat Jan 15, 2005 18:28

Daly is seen repeatedly striking Bunting while he is lying face-down on the ground in the "Sampler" RTS video montage. I dont have any particular opinion on the sentence but it certainly looked to me like he was causing harm.

by fran Sat Jan 15, 2005 18:57

Daly will be aquitted on appeal make no mistake about that, there are serious issues in this case as because he was a Garda he was not given a fair trial or sentence, someone was going to be scapegoated for Mayday 2002, do you think a guy, an ordinary citizen would get a suspended sentence for a technical assault with no previous convictions, you must be joking, you can murder, abuse and rape in this country and get a suspended sentence and go home from the court. Dont be crying about injustice all the time and when one comes along that suits tree huggers they suddenly find it acceptable, the fact that he wasn,t allowed leave to appeal is astounding given the fact that his career is at stake. he will probally go to the high court to get this overturned, lets be consistant folks

by R. Isible Sat Jan 15, 2005 21:52

(in response to "Yogi", that's why I'm asking questions and I thank you for your insight).

W.r.t "fran", you write:
"do you think a guy, an ordinary citizen would get a suspended sentence for a technical assault with no previous convictions [...] the fact that he wasn,t allowed leave to appeal is astounding given the fact that his career is at stake. he will probally go to the high court to get this overturned, lets be consistant folks"

Here's the problem "fran": we have video evidence which you can see which shows this Garda larruping a citizen. He's doing this as part of a cowardly attack with several other Gardai on the same person. It's not like he's even having a one-on-one with the prosecuting witness (which would be bad enough, but more understandable). No, what this Garda is engaging in is a police riot.

The Gardai attacked a peaceful crowd, beat women, young people, men and they're getting away with it. You might see the "suspended sentence" as outrageous, but I do too, for diametrically opposed reasons.

You emphasise (as did the clearly foolish judge) that this man is a Garda, and that's exactly the problem. He's shown that he's willing, while wearing a uniform to attack the community and break the law that he has sworn to uphold.

You are right that he's not the only one and that the buck shouldn't just stop with these dangerous louts. There were senior officers on the ground at the time and if they weren't actively encouraging their minions to riot, then they certainly were not noted as flinging themselves between their Blue Yahoos and the people that were assaulted.

It is remarkable that in the whole history of the "dangerous anarchists preparing to attack civilisation" garbage over the last 3 or 4 years there hasn't been a single Garda hospitalised. The only people that have been injured are the peaceful protestors who have been attacked by the police. ( This general trend holds true since the "Battle of Seattle" in which the police rioted and attacked protestors after torturing them with pepper-spray as they sat down peacefully. Really, you'd expect a good few police men to have had their legs broken, heads cracked open and eyes blackened, but instead we see this happening to protestors in Genoa while they lie sleeping in schools, or in the streets of Dublin when they put on face paint and let off a couple of coloured smoke bombs while playing music.)

The failure to convict any of the Gardai involved in the clearly documented assaults on the people who were injured, abused, terrified, insulted and intimidated by the official representatives of law and order opens a dangerous gap in public confidence.

The judges handing out these paltry sentences, the Garda Representative Association, the press and the individual Gardai responsible on an individual moral and an institutional legal level would do well to reflect on the serious damage they are doing to their reputation and to public confidence.

I can only tell you that as someone that has had at times a positive attitude to the Gardai (whenever I see that some young Garda has jumped in the river and pulled out some drunken eejit, or I see a guard helping some poor insane bastard get into a hostel for the night) this sort of thing stands out as a reminder that there are bad apples aplenty in the force and that the force and its friends in the judiciary succumb to the tribalist ingroup/outgroup mentality all too easily.

In short, although there are some decent skins in there I can't trust them and they've demonstrated a willingness to both be used in an institutionally illegal manner (blocking protests at Shannon instead of inspecting airplanes, attacking anti-capitalist protests, atttacking Reclaim The Streets parties) and to tolerate extreme misbehaviour among their own members (speeding as official drivers for government ministers, bringing prohibited weapons back in their _fecking airplane luggage_, shooting mentally ill people, bullying people they see as poor or powerless).

The lack of any institutional redress to the above problems is highlighted by this case. In some ways I suppose I should welcome that as I think the Gardai are too politically tied to an unpleasant societal model and this failure to hide their bad side will probably wake up a few people and prevents the fence-sitter like me from dwelling too much on the isolated positive actions of a couple of indivduals who happen to be Gardai (after all there's plenty of people that aren't guards that save drowning drunks).

To end this naive, rambling diatribe: the Gardai and the judiciary are digging their own grave with this stuff and my main regret is that a lot of innocent people got hurt by them and are being denied justice of any sort.

At the rate these cases are going you'd think nothing happened on the day.

All broadcasters and media should be with the announcement of each one of the sentences of the Gardai on trial be showing pictures of the bloody assault carried out by the Gardai: the people lying on the ground being hit, the women sitting crying in doorways with their hands on their heads, the savage imbecility on the moronic faces of the "innocent" Gardai.

by Fozie bear Sat Jan 15, 2005 23:57

"Now the guards and/or the prosecution 'service' may have that kind of info on a lot of people, but where is your evidence that those two jurors fitted that description?
Bit of age prejudice there too. Do not assume that someone in any particular age group will automatically fall into a particular voting (or non-voting) group"

Yeah but it's a fair bet. I've witnessed jury selection for these trials and the prefered juror for the defense council is a men in suits in their 30s/40s/50s. Council doesn't know if the person is a PD member or a SF member, or whatever but is just hedging it's bets, and working on an assumption.

I'm not being predjuiced just stating the facts of what I witnessed. So sheath your attitude. Council for the defense of the garda usually objected to jurors who didn't fit a certain profile.

So please spare me your outrage,

by Yogi Sun Jan 16, 2005 02:34

You say "we have video evidence which you can see which shows this Garda larruping a citizen"

Where is this footage. If it is in your posession why was it not presented in Court. I'm very confused!!!

If you are afraid to come forward with the video evidence, it is not to late. I would urge you to publish the evidence either via this site or indeed filesharing. So that the injured parties get justice.

With regard to YoYo's comment:
"Daly is seen repeatedly striking Bunting while he is lying face-down on the ground in the "Sampler" RTS video montage. I dont have any particular opinion on the sentence but it certainly looked to me like he was causing harm."

I can only assume you mean the video clips on this page http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=3261&condense_comments=false#comment36096

If so two clips/photos show Daly
1. Stearing the car
2. Clip entitled policebeatgirls.mpg a number of approx 7 - 8 gardai rush with battons in the air. Daly wearing blue jumper steps back and detains man on ground wearing green combats and black jacket placing his foot on man on ground's hip, foot remains on man on ground for approx 4.4 seconds.

Was that the clip you mentioned???

by RTE Sun Jan 16, 2005 03:44

Did a piece on RTS Events with their own footage

Not Indymedia

by a guy called satan Sun Jan 16, 2005 13:46

Do you notice how the media reports cases where cops are being prosecuted?They never give out the addresses -even when the cops get found guilty.
If you're a member of a Limerick crime gang ,if you're a paedophile ,if you get caught with a load of drugs -gauranteed you'll have where you live plastered all over the newspapers.If you're a cop ,no worry .

by yoyo Sun Jan 16, 2005 18:36

the footage is about halfway through the sampler piece, in black and white, it is repeated a couple of times

by Fozie bear Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:20

"Where is this footage. If it is in your posession why was it not presented in Court. I'm very confused!!!"

All footage possesed by indymedia was presented as evidence.

Not all footage possesed by indymedia was published on the web it runs towards close to five hours. It would be impossible to put it all on the net. IMC possesed footage of the Daly assault was never uploaded.

The assault on bunting was covered by three camera angles one by an rte cameraman, one by a dcu student and one by a trinity student.

You seem to be able to spot daly via poor quality footage off the net, and offer your legal expertise over video footage


"If you are afraid to come forward with the video evidence, it is not to late. I would urge you to publish the evidence either via this site or indeed filesharing. So that the injured parties get justice."

Which shows your ignorance over the "chain of evidence" and how a camerman needs to be present and give evidence if either side objects to the submitting their evidence.

But thats an aside you seem to be clearly able to identify daly on some compressed video footage, interesting

by pat c Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:27

I just checked your point with a barrister and law lecturer. Their learned view is that : "the DPP may appeal any sentence passed by the Circuit Court unless the sentence is as result of an appeal from the District Court".

This case originated in the Circuit Court therefore the DPP may, if he is so minded, appeal the leniency of the sentence handed down by the Judge.

So folks, dont be diverted! Get cracking and contact the DPP!

by eejit Mon Jan 17, 2005 18:10

Can someone tell me what the 'earlier' incident' referred to by Judge Murphy was?

by pc Mon Jan 17, 2005 18:14

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?id=3263

oh look what i found

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?id=5405

by Faith Nomore Thu Jan 20, 2005 01:34 0872980999

While under charge of Assault on a member of the public Garda Daly was IN CHARGE of the Breathalyser Test (on members of the public) in Pearse Street,Garda Station.No inconvenient witnesses or cameras present of course.IS THIS LEGAL?
Last Monday (17-1-2005) his evidence was instrumental in the conviction of ANOTHER teacher ('a lawless lot') on a traffic offence.As he himself had been sentenced on Friday last (14-1-2005) WAS THIS LEGAL?

by Sado Inklined LA Sun Jan 23, 2005 02:24

Now let me get this straight?An Irish policeman is convicted of assaulting a member of the public in public view-while on charge for this he is placed in charge of what you guys call a breathalyser test on members of the public-in a private room of a police station (out of view of independent witnesses).Wow there is a Heaven!How do I join-where do I sign for this man's law team?

by May Day Sat Jan 29, 2005 01:23

So the (Bash) Pearse Street Kid remained on the Loose..Assault with a baton was very serious but the opportunity to deal with members of the Public in private must have been a dream for the Kid as anyone who saw him in action with his baton on 6/May//2002 will agree.His 'community' work should prove really interesting if not lethal and worth following!

by evonne Sat Jan 29, 2005 02:25

Ah guys he's a little cutie.The uniform-the red hair- done it for me.So what if smashes the occasional nobody with a baton!Nobody's perfect.He is unsenticible.

by Al Mon Mar 21, 2005 17:17

Folks,
I havent commented on this site in a long time but felt the need to clear up a few things.
1. Section 2 NFOAP 1997 requires no physical injury, it can even be a threat to hurt someone. Section 3 requires harm. This can be a minor injury such as bloody nose or black eye. It must be seen by a doctor or a guard, etc.
2. The sentence imposed for Section 2 is actually quite severe compared to most of these offences as they are normally dealt with by way of the Probation Act and not recorded as a criminal conviction with no attached penalty.
3. Donations or compensation is probable the most common way of punishing a person compared to imprisonment. Which would you prefer? I will take the cash if Im the victim.
4. Your all missing the point, the court should not have heard a Section 2 trial. This is a summary offence and is heard at district court level, not by judge and jury. The maximum sentence is 6 months and anything which has a maximum sentence of under 2 years does not go to the higher courts.
5. This Garda should be treated like any other person, this is what is always being said. Well he was treated harsher than normal and theres still complaints. Talk about a no win situation.
6. Corcoran is not a member of the Victim support agency. It is not a Garda initiative. Its seperate and Gardai can only advise and refere people to it. As for Daly, I think the people he works with within the community are better able to decide if he should remain or not. He is dealing with them at the end of the day.
For anyone who does not understand Irish criminal law I will quite happily answer any questions about it but I would strongly recommend spending a day in a District court and seeing it in action.

by Al Mon Mar 21, 2005 17:28

While under charge of Assault on a member of the public Garda Daly was IN CHARGE of the Breathalyser Test (on members of the public) in Pearse Street,Garda Station.No inconvenient witnesses or cameras present of course.IS THIS LEGAL?
Last Monday (17-1-2005) his evidence was instrumental in the conviction of ANOTHER teacher ('a lawless lot') on a traffic offence.As he himself had been sentenced on Friday last (14-1-2005) WAS THIS LEGAL?

Yes its perfectly legal just like its legal for the person convicted of drink driving to drive to court on the day of the trial. You cant have it both ways, either accept the Gardai are to be treated like everyone else or dont. You cant have it both ways. Does innocent until proven guilty not apply when its a Garda? Did the drink driver lose his job? the Garda probable will.

by Al Mon Mar 21, 2005 17:47

Do you notice how the media reports cases where cops are being prosecuted?They never give out the addresses -even when the cops get found guilty.
If you're a member of a Limerick crime gang ,if you're a paedophile ,if you get caught with a load of drugs -gauranteed you'll have where you live plastered all over the newspapers.If you're a cop ,no worry .

Personally I am not in favour of reporting peoples addresses as I believe it can result in vigilantes and in some cases the people will 'go to ground' where the Gardai cannot keep an eye on them. Having said that lets get some things straight. As a Garda I cannot allow my current address or that of my family to become common knowledge. How many people out there would like some revenge on me? My home would be destroyed and my family put in danger. Im sorry but I have to protect my family which includes young children as it is my social excursions cannot be to certain areas. Im sure the IRA would love to get Garda addresses that easily without having to follow or watch us. Make no mistake, the IRA have an excellent intelligence system on the police. Our addresses, family, car, etc.
Secondly, I am entitled to a life outside of my occupation and dont not want every Tom, Dick and Harry coming to me at all hours. This happens enough just from my circle of friends.
Finally, who says that addresses arent given out? Gardai use our occupational address just like security guards, truck drivers, etc. But even then Gardai have their addresses put in print all the time. It just doesnt give the house number which papers rarely do with any person. "garda Blogs from Clontarf".

by unknown Fri Apr 15, 2005 16:38

is it so difficult for the courts to convict any May day gardai of assault? I mean the footage speaks for itself, are they blind?
or
are they afraid of intimidation if they DO convict a garda???