Cork city has gone to the dogs - official crime thread

[Dinger]

There's new planters right outside Brown Thomas. I think it needs more plants in it but it's a welcome addition

It'll take another 800 years to get rid of them if history teaches us anything.

 

[Matlock]

"Cross-examined by defence barrister, Mahon Corkery, the detective agreed that the accused had no convictions of any kind.

Judge Waters said in relation to the objection to bail that a defendant with no previous convictions would be given bail in the High Court even thought the matter was extremely serious."


So despite it being an extremely serious case he was de facto going to get bail. - Wonder what would have happened had it been a relative of the judge that was attacked.

The Judge wouldn't be hearing the bail application if it was his relative that had been attacked. And yes, the accused would likely still get bail because they are innocent until proven guilty.

And just because the accused had no convictions of any kind that the garda knew of doesn't mean that they didn't carry out this kind of attack in the past and evaded the law. Had the guilty party come from a different jurisdiction and/or changed his name? We're not told in the article, but guys in their 30s don't usually just suddenly change their habits and go from upstanding law-abiding citizens to carrying out serious assaults on defenceless women. Whatever about being a scobe and mugging someone for their phone, indulging in sexual assault on the woman is very sinister. Not sinister enough for the judge to take him off the streets though

What you are suggesting here is entirely based on your perception that the accused is guilty.

"The judge granted bail on condition that the accused would live at an address outside Cork city, remain outside Cork city except for court and legal appointments, have no contact with the injured party and keep a curfew between 9pm and 8am."

Judge puts him on bail as long as he lives outside Cork City and remains there except for court and legal appointments, yet some here were claiming we would be trying something along the lines of exporting the problem by moving scobes that congregate menacingly in town just out to the fringes of the city

The Judge wasn't saying that he had to go live somewhere outside the city, for fuck sake! The Judge was referring to a specific address, which is outside of Cork city. The specific address is not reported on, for obvious reasons.

 

[Matlock]

Jesus Christ, given bail then ffs.

I understand the presumption of innocence before someone has had their day in Court but for serious sexual offences is there no duty of care to the public?

Would you be comfortable with a system whereby if someone is accused of a serious sexual assault then they are denied bail? So they remain in jail until their court date.

Because we could do that. It would require a constitutional amendment to do so, but we absolutely could.

But imagine for a minute that it is your son who is accused of rape, and that without any recourse to the law he is jailed for a year awaiting trial. Is that a price you consider worth paying?

Genuine question, not meant as a gotcha.

 

[Yermon]

The Judge wouldn't be hearing the bail application if it was his relative that had been attacked. And yes, the accused would likely still get bail because they are innocent until proven guilty.

What you are suggesting here is entirely based on your perception that the accused is guilty.

The Judge wasn't saying that he had to go live somewhere outside the city, for fuck sake! The Judge was referring to a specific address, which is outside of Cork city. The specific address is not reported on, for obvious reasons.

So irrespective of the seriousness of the crime the guy should be given bail is it?

If the judge thought he was innocent why is he imposing restrictions on the accused? Were the base on the judges perception that the accused is guilty?


Ah shur, another day in court so more money

 

[Crusty Ring]

Would you be comfortable with a system whereby if someone is accused of a serious sexual assault then they are denied bail? So they remain in jail until their court date.

Because we could do that. It would require a constitutional amendment to do so, but we absolutely could.

But imagine for a minute that it is your son who is accused of rape, and that without any recourse to the law he is jailed for a year awaiting trial. Is that a price you consider worth paying?

Genuine question, not meant as a gotcha.

I completely understand that position which is why I referenced the presumption of innocence before someone has had their day in court.

It's not an easy one to answer, you have the argument if that was your son and he was innocent etc but also what if your daughter was raped or worse while this guy is awaiting trial?

It can be viewed from both perspectives, I'm aware we can't lock up everyone who is awaiting trial but violent sexual crime falls under a higher risk

He 'allegedly' attacked and sexually assaulted a women and only for the quick actions of people in the area it could have been much worse, these don't strike me of the actions of balanced individual and leaving him out on bail is a danger to the public at large.

Maybe a compromise here would be that the alleged offender would need to wear a device such as an ankle bracelet where they can be tracked at all times, they would still have their liberty pending a trial but would be less likely to commit further crimes when they have a reminder they are being tracked strapped to them.

 

[Matlock]

So irrespective of the seriousness of the crime the guy should be given bail is it?

Do you not understand how the presumption of innocence works?

If the judge thought he was innocent why is he imposing restrictions on the accused? Were the base on the judges perception that the accused is guilty?

Bail restrictions are standard. They are mainly there to ensure that the state knows where the accused is and to ensure that there is no contact between the parties. So no, they are not based on the presumption of guilt.

Ah shur, another day in court so more money

Giving bail doesn't involve any more days in court than keeping someone on remand. There really is no end to your ignorance of the law...

 

[Matlock]

I completely understand that position which is why I referenced the presumption of innocence before someone has had their day in court.

It's not an easy one to answer, you have the argument if that was your son and he was innocent etc but also what if your daughter was raped or worse while this guy is awaiting trial?

It can be viewed from both perspectives, I'm aware we can't lock up everyone who is awaiting trial but violent sexual crime falls under a higher risk

He 'allegedly' attacked and sexually assaulted a women and only for the quick actions of people in the area it could have been much worse, these don't strike me of the actions of balanced individual and leaving him out on bail is a danger to the public at large.

Maybe a compromise here would be that the alleged offender would need to wear a device such as an ankle bracelet where they can be tracked at all times, they would still have their liberty pending a trial but would be less likely to commit further crimes when they have a reminder they are being tracked strapped to them.

I think that's an excellent compromise tbh.

 

[fed up]

Blackrock Road ffs

https://twitter.com/x/status/2097762471549485238

Christ, that has me thinking about this girl from a couple of weeks ago now again....

 

[Crusty Ring]

I think that's an excellent compromise tbh.

Is there such a provision in our system for this kind of thing?

I know you see it in other parts of the world but not sure I’ve ever seen it here?

You’d imagine it’s a lower cost solution than putting people on remand

 

[Matlock]

Is there such a provision in our system for this kind of thing?

I know you see it in other parts of the world but not sure I’ve ever seen it here?

You’d imagine it’s a lower cost solution than putting people on remand

We are introducing them on a trial basis. IIRC the legislation for it was signed last month.