10.11.07
Carney’s Speech
I thought it was excellent. Some of the comments about the media turning the victim’s family into icons were particularly relevant. And this
“Finally, we got an interesting insight into how Mr Joe Duffy operates. In the explosive atmosphere after sentence being imposed, in ignorance of who he was, one of Mr Duffy’s researchers approached a court official looking for a comment. This shatters the myth of Mr Duffy being a kindly old gentleman who sits by his telephone in Dublin waiting for it to ring.”
This happens all the time. They ring people up and create a programme around it. It’s not based on people ringing them which would be fine if they didn’t allow the impression to arise otherwise.
And Majella Holohan’s statement this morning shows that at this stage she still believes she did the right thing
“The features that I alluded to, semen and the like . . . were matters that any responsible mother would allude to. Was I to go into court and give a statement which made no reference to these matters although they were of considerable concern to me? I think I would not have done justice to my much loved son Robert if I had done so.”
She branded Wayne a paedophile killer when he was no such thing. He deserved punishment for the crime he did and for nothing else. And still no complaints about the DPP not prosecuting him for the cover-up. They were the ones who made a mess of the case.
grainne said,
October 11, 2007 at 11:31 am
I don’t condone what Wayne O’ Donoghue did but he was already going down for a murder, what Ms Holohon said was a disgrace, she labelled him a paedophile even though there was no evidence to prove this. If the Gardai had found evidence to prove he was a paedophile it would have come out in court but they didn’t have any such evidence.
She didn’t give a victim impact statement – she did her own Majella Holohon trial and sentencing act which sent the tabloids crazy with wild accusations against Wayne O’ Donoghue. When Justice Paul Carney criticised her last night for her comments – she is back again in the media spotlight saying how hurt she feels. Initially I did have sympathy for her but now I am just fed up of hearing the same story over and over again. Since I woke up this morning its been on every news bulletin. Who does she think she is? How many other families out there have had loved ones murdered?? and in some cases the murder is still unsolved. Wayne O’ Donoghue is doing the time for his crime …Is it not time for this woman to move on and grieve. The case is closed.
John of Dublin said,
October 11, 2007 at 11:56 am
It’s a delicate issue but on balance I agree with Grainne (except to clarify that it was manslaughter, not murder). There were plenty of ways for her to question the semen issue before the trial.
P O'Neill said,
October 11, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I think that there’s going to be backlash against Carney’s speech. He’s on shaky ground referring to the “iconic” status of victims when the general sense is that once a crime is committed, a big legal apparatus kicks in to protect the rights of the accused, while the victim or the bereaved get to sit in the courtroom and then just told to resume their lives as normal when the trial ends. Bear in mind in particular some atrocious sentencing in rape cases, where a few of Carney’s colleagues seem to think that rape is no big deal.
Tiny Planet » Majella and Judge Carney said,
October 11, 2007 at 12:37 pm
[...] Sarah Carey makes a good point: Still no complaints about the DPP not prosecuting him for the cover-up. They [...]
Niall said,
October 11, 2007 at 12:40 pm
What the hell do they have a victim impact statement for anyway? Regardless of whether Wayne Donoghue had killed a homeless man who had no family and no friends rather than a loved son who is missed by all of his family and friends, he should have got the same sentence.
Sarah said,
October 11, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Carney also addressed the attacks that he gets, “the sky falls in” when he gives a non-custodial sentence to say, a rapist and yet there is hardly a murmur when the court of criminal appeal uphold his sentences. In fact I can recall several cases where he said he would LIKE to give harsher sentences but he knew they would be overturned by the appeal court.
He also addressed the issue of sentencing not being vengeance for the victim.
The Crewser said,
October 11, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Mr Justice Carney is absolutely correct in his analysis and also very brave to make such a statement. There may be a minor backlash but serious criminal charges against anyone must be processed fairly and justly to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.
JL Pagano said,
October 11, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I think Carney’s statements are brilliant only if they are taken into proper context.
I do not believe Mrs Holohan was at fault for what she said. The rules of the court were there and she availed of them. She was very badly informed by the gardai (and probably her solicitor as well) all throughout the trial and I have a funny feeling that I would have said something similar myself given the same information.
Remember – she wasn’t a legal expert at the time, she was a grieving mother. And as for the media, well what are they supposed to report when they hear something like what she said?
So if the upshot of this speech is that the victim’s should be properly liased with by the courts and the gardai throughout a trial, then the VIS has a better future; otherwise we may as well scrap it altogether or something like this the Holohan case is bound to happen again.
Niall said,
October 11, 2007 at 5:58 pm
If they insist on having victim impact statements, why not just have a court offical read out a statement made by the victim or the victim’s family? The judge could vet the statement before hand and have it amended if need be. That way we could avoid scenarios like the above.
JL Pagano said,
October 11, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I think vetting the VIS would render it totally useless, but what they could do is make the solicitor responsible for what is said. Then the solicitor can prepare a statement and have it in writing so that if the victim’s family member deviates from it, they will be liable and can be held in contempt. Solicitors are paid a lot of money to give legal advise – it’s up to them to earn it by properly advising their client to do the right thing.
Niall said,
October 11, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Yes, but at the end of day, they can only give advice, and grieving parents may just ignore that advice. That would be a bit like fining prison wardens if former inmates reoffended. Now if somehow we could prove that they failed to provide the victim with the relevant advice, that would be another story. But I can’t see how you’d go about proving that.
I’m still confused though as to what use the VIS is supposed to have.
Sarah said,
October 11, 2007 at 11:22 pm
hmm I think Majella knew exactly what she was doing. The cops were wrong to tell her about the non-admissable evidence BUT her statement was written out and approved by everyone in advance. Then she added in ad lib the inadmissable stuff. She knew perfectly well she wasn’t supposed to refer to it.
tom said,
October 12, 2007 at 9:21 am
“Carney also addressed the attacks that he gets, “the sky falls in” when he gives a non-custodial sentence to say, a rapist and yet there is hardly a murmur when the court of criminal appeal uphold his sentences”
Maybe I’m overly-influenced by Joe Duffy and the tabloid press but I find it hard to imagine any circumstance in which a convicted rapist shouldn’t get a custodial sentence.
Paddyanglican said,
October 12, 2007 at 9:41 am
Sarah – Swimming against the tide of comments here and your own angle but I think some people (you included) are expecting too much perspective from a grieving mother! – I am surprised that you as a mother seem to brush this aside so lightly. Magella had lost her child in terrible circumstances – his body had been hidden and an attempt made to destroy it! Some evidence (admittedly unsafe) had not been allowed and the killer faced a very short sentence for a crime that destroyed a whole family. She had an opportunity to have her say – she went beyond what was anticipated she would say out of a feeling of helplessness and frustration in having lost her son and with a justifiable concern that she had not been able to achieve justice for him. What would you do different? That’s the question we have to ask ourselves. If fault there is then it is in the way this victim impact statement procedure is managed and here the good judge bears some responsibility. Further his attach on Magella was cruel, insensitive and totally innappropriate as Magella’s counsel pointed out. You cannot expect a grief-stricken parent to display the dispassionate professionalism of a legal professional. If what Magella H said was innappropriate, what Judge Carney said was in a different league – It was indefensible and piled more suffering on a family that has had more than any of us could want or bear!
Sarah said,
October 12, 2007 at 11:21 am
Tom, that is your view and indeed Carney has said in the past he would impose stiffer sentences but when he does they are overturned by the Appeal Court. His complaint is that his decisions are attacked in the press for leniency but the Appeal Court seems to escape.
Paddy – You have to understand the damage that Majella did. Wayne was charged and convicted of a crime and is in jail for that. By branding him a paedophile she has had him convicted in the court of public opinion. She knew she wasn’t supposed to do it and she did it anyway. Of course she is heartbroken over the death of her son, but what she did was not justice to her son. What happened to mercy? Also, she endangered the whole system of victim impact statements leading to recommendations to limit them. (which Carney opposed).
Bereavement is not a licence to ignore mercy, legal convention and wilfully destroy Wayne O’Donoghue’s life. That is not justice, that’s just revenge, and I doubt you would defend that.
Paul Moloney said,
October 12, 2007 at 11:32 am
I for one find it heart-warming to see Official Ireland close ranks around a poor besieged ex-PD Gonzaga boy (a minority that needs special protection since the last election) against such an obvious schemer from the lower orders who probably doesn’t even miss her child that much (he was rather young and, I imagine, can’t have held his end up well at dinner parties). It’s great to see a community come together in these “Bowling Alone” days.
Also interesting to note that the learned justice doesn’t give out mandatory custodial sentences for rape merely because he thinks they would be overturned. Obviously that particular topic isn’t of enough merit to prompt him to give intemperate speeches, but then perhaps he’d rather save his ire for victims than his peers. No need to bash the rungs on the greasy ladder upwards, what?
P.
Sarah said,
October 12, 2007 at 11:41 am
oh PLEASE.
He HAS complained about the lighter sentences but there is nothing he can do about it. He is the most well respected and experienced criminal judge in the country and has frequently bashed the HSE for their disgraceful failure to look after juveniles.
This man has a great track record in social justice not just penal.
Majella is a grieving woman and I am sorry for her – but she knowingly did harm. We are entitled to hold her to account for that. AND as Carney did the press who gained so much from her.
grainne said,
October 12, 2007 at 1:56 pm
And from looking at todays papers Majella Holohon is still making the headlines and going off in tangents with wild sweeping statements. In part of her statement released through her solicitor Ernest Cantillon she accused Paul Carney of walking out of a church service being held for the victims of crime, this was later refuted not just by Paul Carney himself but by people who were at the service and a spokesperson from Advic. She should get a new solicitor as he is doing her no favours, he seems to be still giving her bad advice. Its plain to see she is cheesed off but if she is gonna make wild accusations at least get the facts straight.
Paul Moloney said,
October 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“He HAS complained about the lighter sentences”
Reference? I’d be especially curious to know if the speech contains the same charged language that he uses against Majella Holohan. And I’m also not sure how the narrative that his hands are tied behind his back when it comes to sentences for rape ties in with articles such as this (a multiple rape involving breaking and entering and death threats):
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhmhkfcweygb/rss2/
“He measured sentence at the 15 years mark on the scale available to him and took into account Goncarovs’ guilty plea which was of major assistance to the couple, that he had a history of work and came to Ireland to earn money to send back home.”
So, Carney _could_ have sentenced the accused to 15 years, but knocked 5 years off because “he had a history of work” and “came to Ireland to earn money”. (Oh, let’s not forget the “pleading guilty” bit, as if the guy had any hope of not being convicted in these circumstances, caught _naked_ by Gardai after the woman’s partner escaped)
Presumably only unemployed rapists should have the full weight of the law thrown at them? Exactly whose fault other than Carney’s _is_ this sentence?
And of course, that’s not an isolated case; there’s was a whole article in the Sunday Tribune about his sentencing.
“has frequently bashed the HSE for their disgraceful failure to look after juveniles.”
It’s great that he stands up for rights of offenders so well (I’m not being sarcastic there), but it doesn’t guard him from the accusation that he’s more exercised about offender’s rights than victim’s rights.
“This man has a great track record in social justice not just penal.”
Again, this is off the point; he’s not a social worker.
“Majella is a grieving woman and I am sorry for her – but she knowingly did harm.”
I guess when you want answers about your son’s death and aren’t given them, you’re liable to get emotional. If what she said was libelous, then presumably O’Donoghue can sue her.
P.
Niall said,
October 12, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“but it doesn’t guard him from the accusation that he’s more exercised about offender’s rights than victim’s rights.”
He’s a judge, that’s his job! In fighting crime, our priority must be to do no further wrong. I’m much rather the state let a guilty man go free, than convict an innocent one.
People will complain about Guantanamo Bay and nod as they watch In the Name of the Father, they may even moan about the executions of innocent men in far off lands like Texas, but when it comes to everyday crime, too many Irish people fail to recognise that during a trial, the accused is innocent.
Paul Moloney said,
October 12, 2007 at 4:13 pm
“He’s a judge, that’s his job!”
Er, no. I think you’ll find it’s not a judge’s primary role to look after prisoners’ rights.
“I’m much rather the state let a guilty man go free, than convict an innocent one.”
Erm, where on earth did we start talking about locking up innocent people? We’re talking about disparties in sentencing. Are you saying that Carney actually gives low rape sentences because he’s afraid the convicted are innocent? Please stick to the current discussion without going all Susan Sarandon on us.
P.
Sarah said,
October 12, 2007 at 4:19 pm
She was given answers she just didn’t listen
- the semen sample was unreliable and could’ve been Wayne’s father’s
- photographs had not been taken in the early morning and deleted
- text messages had not been made at 6am.
That’s why none of it was mentioned at the trial. That’s why she wasn’t supposed to mention it and that’s why she deliberately did not include it in her written statement. She did not lash out in a state of upset – she planned in advance to say it.
The Irish Sun had “Nothing but a paedophile” as its headline the next day.
Carney was actually very moderate by going on to argue that DESPITE the damage she had inflicted by going off-statement he still didn’t believe that defence council should have the right to censor VIS even though this was subsequently recommended by the Law Reform Commission.
I’m not spending the next half hour looking for links to defend Carney. He is the foremost criminal judge in the country. He sentences in line with precedent and guidelines. This may upset victims but attacking him is pointless.
By the way Paul, an early guilty plea is a standard device to reduce sentences as it means the victim doesn’t have to give evidence. You will have heard this referred to today regarding the sentencing of the guys who threw the petrol bomb at the car in Moyross where the children were severely burned. It doesn’t mean the judge is a pinko defender of arsonists, rapists and murderers. Its a standard legal procedure. You may not like it but that is the system not the judge.
Niall said,
October 12, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Paul, we’re using multiple terms here that are confusing, and please take into consideration that I’m addressing one particular comment you made.
You said:
“…but it doesn’t guard him from the accusation that he’s more exercised about offender’s rights than victim’s rights”
To which I replied.
“He’s a judge, that’s his job!”
I should not have said that offender’s rights should be at the fore of a judge’s mind, rather that the rights of the accused, that is the rights of the innocent man, should be his primary concern.
Victims have no rights, and they should have no more rights than any other individual, at least in the courtroom. As a judge, Carney has no need to consider victims’ rights.
Paul Moloney said,
October 12, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“I’m not spending the next half hour looking for links to defend Carney. He is the foremost criminal judge in the country.”
Argumentum ad verecundiam…
“The Irish Sun had “Nothing but a paedophile” as its headline the next day.”
Then O’Donoghue’s case is with the Irish Sun. But Carney seems to be using this as a neat turn to bash the media in general, from whom reasonable questions have been asked before about his sentencing.
“By the way Paul, an early guilty plea is a standard device to reduce sentences as it means the victim doesn’t have to give evidence. ”
I’m fully aware of that, Sarah; hence I emphasised the fact that the case didn’t rest on the victim’s evidence as in most rape trials.
Neither does this explain lowering the accused’s sentence because – for example – they have a job.
P.
The Crewser said,
October 13, 2007 at 12:48 pm
This was a very emotive case and one feels for the families on both sides, families who knew one another well and were close friends it would appear before this tragic incident took place. There is an need for absolute consistency in the way criminal trials are conducted to ensure that justice is dispensed fairly at the conclusion of the trials. That consistency was seriously diluted in this particular instance and Justice Carney was quite right to highlight this. I have been reading articles from various academic lawyers and others questioning his right to raise the matter in the way he did but to my mind a senior member of the judiciary is the best placed person to make such a statement as they have experience and the authority that others do not have to make a judgement on what is a highly sensitive and delicate matter.