Court Briefs
Suspended sentence for assaulting and robbing priest
An 18 year old man has received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to assault and robbery of a 72 year old retired priest.
James Power, Smith O’Brien Avenue, Kileely, had previously pleaded guilty to the charges in relation to an incident at Thomond House, Farranshone, in November 2006. His Co-accused, Joseph Tobin of Hogan Avenue in Kileely, is currently serving a three year prison sentence.
The court was told how the men assaulted and spat on the priest, as well as how they robbed him of €350 in cash, and jewellery, as well as causing €300 damage to his home. The priest was later taken to hospital with injuries sustained from a mallet and sweeping brush.
Joseph Tobin had been described as the principal party involved in the robbery, while Power was said to have had a clean record beforehand, and was only involved to a lesser extent.
Describing the attack as particularly nasty, Judge Carol Moran imposed a 2 year prison sentence, suspending it, and binding Power to the peace.
10 months for Xtravision robbery
Two men were told that they were lucky their case was not being heard in a higher court by Judge Tom O’Donnell this week after they were handed down a ten month prison sentence for robbing a video rental store.
Andrew Foran of North Claughaun Road, Garryowen and David Heelan from St Munchin`s Street, St. Mary`s Park peaded guilty to the theft of €431 from Xtravision at Grove Island, Corbally on the 9th of March.
The court was told how the two men, along with a co-accused had threatened staff at the store.
Their solicitor John Devane, describing them as two further heroin statistics, told the court that the men were extremely intoxicated and actively involved in taking drugs.
The two men, who had pleaded guilty to the charges, were subsequently handed down ten months imprisonment.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Oh, good man Johnny D., it’s heroin statistics that are robbing us now. There’s the rest of us thinking they’re thieves and robbers.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
What the fkuc is going on here? Suspended sentence for robbing and terrorising an elderly priest and 10 months for xtravision?
Are these morons of judges pulling these sentences out of a hat or is it a game of pin the tail on the donkey?
May 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
A suspended sentence for assaulting a person with a mallet and robbing them, while a 10 month sentence is giving for robbing xtravision.
What is going on here… where is the consistency ?
May 21st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
You’re obviously not familiar with the work of Carol Moran.
I can tell when I read the length of sentence handed down in the Limerick courts which judge was presiding.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
the two guys who got the ten months each for stealing the tv, set, had long criminal records, they also threatened staff at the store. the guy who got the suspended sentence for robbing the priest, had no previous record also he didnt use the violence and had a much lesser role than his co, accused, who got three years because he had a record, get your facts right.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“Get your facts right” - he assaulted a priest for god sake.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
sentenses, when they are given really are pot luck. getting to this atage is a triumph in itself.
business before people!
i’m obviously not a church goer, i didn’t know priests retired from preaching the Lords word. hmm… i see this is another job/career for boys.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
“An 18-year-old man”?
No.
Anyone who’d assault a pensioner is not a man.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:56 pm
scum of the earth, where is that one day Travis Pickle promised us?
May 21st, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Passed the courthouse last week, it’s a wonder anyone comes to visit this city, 10 paddy wagons, scumbags all over the place and handy out mammy’s giving out about having to walk down town to get paid, let’s cop on and move the court, hide our dirty linen because it stinks.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
The priest was on Drivetime this evening talking to Mary Wilson. He said he’s been attacked five times since coming to live in Limerick.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:55 pm
give the lad a break, its his first offence, you lot are a bunch of sadists, if it was your son you would be pleading for him, you should be ashamed to say your catholics, your vicious and vindictive and you can only see revenge for everything.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Well I ask you where is justice after the suspended sentence these bastards received for assaulting a 72 year-old priest? Not that being a cleric should have anything to do with the sentence (after all I’m an ex-cleric) even if he were a painter, hairdresser, barman etc., it shouldn’t make a difference in the sentence.
Robbery is one thing, but beating the poor fellow up and then walk out of court. The fuc@ers should go to prison for 5 years and do hard labour 12 hours a day, which every shithead should do when he/she causes any type of harm to another human being. The poor man is probably very stressed too.
I had to write this letter, otherwise I would scream my head off and wake up my poor wife and neighbours.
I hope there is a place in hell for bastards like these. You may ask about “turn the other cheek” well one has two cheeks (unless one counts the two they sit on)
In all seriousness, will you please ask The Lord to bless the poor man and help him cope with his robbery and assualts? Johnny.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 am
@ Biggie
I’m not a sadist, I do not believe in what you call “revenge for everything”, but I do believe in proper and consistent punishment for a crime. It should not matter if it is your first offense or your 100th, if you are found guilty you should be adequately punished. You also should be punished for the particular crime alone (or your act in it), your past history should not be a factor. If all crime was dealt with consistently and adequately then if a person is up for his/her 100th crime, then they have done their time for the last 99.
I understand that a good person may stray and can end up in a bad situation, but they must accept the results of their actions (or inactions) and serve their time for their part. I don’t necessarily mean jail, maybe some community service or charity work. But pay they should, not just walk free
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 am
[Mod edit … citation required, remainder of post intact.] Bock the Robber hit the nail on the head there for once, what kind of a man.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
‘biggie’ are you perchance living on cloud cukoo land? with your give him a break malarky? honestly tho, are you for real?
A guy breaks into someones home and attacks them and robs them, not to mention it was an old priest unable to defend himself, and you say ’shur twas his ‘first offence’. ?!!
Are you handing out ‘get out of jail’ cards too? Because im fairly strapped for cash and if i had one of those cards i could hit the AIB on o’connel street for a few grand and as ive no previous convictions…
?:/
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
@ biggie,
Just because he has no previous convictions does not mean it is the first time he has been in trouble he may have recieved juvenile or adult cautions the details of which cannot be given in court.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
johnny rotten .
your an ex priest , well with the vicious language you use i should think the country is bettr off that you are an ex, one the rest of your blog doesnt merit response. to jenkins, yes you make a fair point, to goo, if you go to the bank and try to con money out of them and you have no previous record, well you wont go to jail either or should you. to funky do. you are not a judge, a fair sentence in your eyes might be unfair in anothers eyes. thats why judges are appointed and previous convictions do matter, are you telling me that if two guys break into a premises and steal from their and one of those two has twenty previous convictions and the o.ther has none that both should get the same sentence, ridiculous
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
@ biggie
I never said, or even implied, I was a judge. My point is that a sentence should not be subjective, it should be be a standard conviction handed down for a particular crime with all factors taking into account.
If a person has 20 previous convictions then he/she has served their time for these all ready and therefore they should not have to be held accountable for these again. A sentence for a crime should be for that crime only, and if he is a multiple offender then there should be procedures in place for such a person. I do not believe that a person should be allowed get away with being a multiple offender, I think we should have a 3 strikes and your out policy like in the US.
They way I see it is this, the guy in question went into a house to rob an elderly priest (the fact that he is a priest is irrelevant, the fact that he was elderly is relevant as he has diminished ability to defend himself). He and his friend proceed to rob, assault the man with a mallet, and destroy his house. Now I know the other guy did the majority of the stuff and is serving time for this, but the guy in question was party to this and form what I know did not do anything to stop it.
If you are happy to defend a person that would stand by and witness a friend of his carry out such acts without making a effort to prevent it then that is your choice… but not mine.
Did this guy phone the ambulance for the man or stay with him to tend to his injuries ? Or did he run away and leave the man in a blood mess in his own house ? A person is equally responsible for their inactions as they are for their actions.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
funky do.
i must say yr a very dignified person, you argue facts and do not make personal attacks, but i think you slipped up by using america as an example of yhe justice system, america has the second highest murder rate in the world, they have the highest prison population in the world, it is one of the most violent countries in the world, a recent statistic showed that 22, per cent of americans are on cocaine, also a very corupt police force, so their justice system doesnt work, only for the rich lawyers of course.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Limerick does have worrying crime and murder statistics also, high levels of drug use and the Judicary is on cloud nine half the time.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
yes ann.
limerick does have frightening statistics, in crime, but i have said it many times, that the drugs problem is their because of the people who buy the drugs, until they stop buing drugs the situation will go on,
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
im i getting old and cranky, i went to the jetland shopping store tonight to dunnes, only getting one item, and at the pay counter was a group of animal welfare volunteers wrapping peoples grocerys, unsolicited i might add, now i love animals and asdmire these animal weklfare people but i found them intimidating , i will not be embarressed into giving money to charities, i will give of my own free will, i spoke to other people about it on the way out and they agred. sorry for the digression, had to vent my anger.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
We have an e-mail address for such things .
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
@ biggie
Thank you for your praise, I do not believe in attacking people for their views or beliefs. There is no reason why people can not have a civilized debate about such things. Everybody has a right to their opinion and also the right to voice and debate their opinion.
As far as the US justice system goes, I agree with you it is a mess. I do not think we should adopt such a system, I just uses it as an example of how multiple offenders are treated.
We do agree on one thing, how charities and such uses intimidation and exploitation to their ends. Now, I have no problem with charities and what they do, but I think a person should give to charity out of a sense of kindness and duty and not because somebody decided to force them into a position where it looks bad if they refuse.
If you walk down O’Connell’s Street most evenings you can not help been approached by the strangely happy teenagers in the red jackets collecting for a well known charity. The start waving and extend their hands in the hope of cornering you, and if you refuse to stop they start shouting after you in an attempt to show you up.
There is also the “Would you like to help…” line which gets on my craw, if your are asked and refuse it implied that you would not like to help. So some people end up only giving so that the passers by do not think that they are mean.
Again this is not a shot at charities, if a person can afford a few euros from time to time then they should give to charities as they do great work and help many people. My gripe is with the methods some charities uses.
@ Squid
Sorry for the off topic rant.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
squid,
i dont understand when you say theirs an email for such things, i feel my blog about charities is very important because i am finding more and more people are annoyed about the collectors attidudesa. lot of them are students getting a good salary fir the summer months , obstructing people in the streets.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
It is preferrable that you use the email address rather than taking threads off topic. that is what I mean.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
ok… so the answer for criminals is less time not more time…?
maybe im missing the point but that scumbag was up to no good, breaking into an old persons home, physically attacking him and robbing him. Maybe you should try putting yourself in the place of the victim rather than empathising with the perpartrator.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
i didnt empathise with the perpetrator, i merely voiced my opimion that his role was lessaer than his co, accused and that he had no previous record,
May 24th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
well you know what they say, tell it to the judge.