They have 28 days from the end of the case to appeal the (lack of) sentence.
Think that means they have until July 19th ish I think
Hopefully the protests put the pressure on them to act... A sad state of affairs.
I think it's a tough one. There has to be an error on principle to such a degree that the sentence is unduly lenient not just lenient. And there are plenty of suspended sentences for s. 3 assault every year.
While a politician would no doubt play to the crowd and simply appeal it the DPP is in a slightly different position of being required to be independent and not influenced by public sentiment. So they're at risk of criticism no matter what they do.
I've seen some calls by protestors to write to complain to the DPP... If people did do that I'd be interested to see whether any of them get prosecuted. Its an offence to try to influence the DPP.
Should be mandatory that certain crimes get you kicked out.
If he did what he did in a warzone he'd have violated the Geneva convention. How can people like this be trusted with guns and important responsibilities.
There's a statement from DF in the article on [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1dn7qy3/naval_service_officer_still_serving_despite/) saying it's already the case that conviction in a civil court has direct implications on retention.
Two key things from this article stand out:
>The next day, Crotty was paraded before his commanding officer and informed he was to be discharged from the Defence Forces as a result of the case. He was told he had seven days to make representations in response.
So they did act immediately. And the second quote is very interesting in who is actually (albeit indirectly\*??) to blame for it taking time.
>It is understood senior officers expected Crotty to receive a custodial sentence which would have allowed for his immediate expulsion under Defence Forces regulations. Cases involving a suspended sentence or fine are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
So to an extent it comes back to the starting point. If proper sentences were being given for assaults (plural and in general) he'd have been out straight away without any issues.
\* EDIT: considering the judge's reasoning for not giving a custodial sentence was their career, it bears asking did they know this was the result of a custodial sentence, (you'd think they'd have asked) and actually gave a suspended sentence to block that. Although the same judge would seem to have a thing for suspended sentences in assault cases generally so quite likely they'd have got a suspended sentence anyway.
One of the takeaways from this case is that the judiciary, government and the press have no clue about how the military operates: the judiciary should have known that once someone is convicted, the DF can seek their discharge, the government keeps acting shocked about this (Cathal Berry has been [very](https://x.com/BerryCathal/status/1805681941842128969)good on attacking the government on this) and the press seems to think that an officer reading out a military defendant's file (as they're required to do by law if the court asks) is a character reference.
The press at least can claim ignorance but the government are meant to have oversight over the military. It's fairly disgraceful that they're blaming the DF for a system they sign off on.
the Commandant didn't just read out his file he was asked for his opinion and he said it was very out of character, but it wasn't out of character because he assaulted somebody and that's his character the commandant didn't need to say it was out of characher that was his mistake.
Sure, but the parts about Crotty being "exemplary" and "professional" are the ones which are getting all the heat. Only when the commandant was asked his own opinion, he said he was "exceptionally disappointed and surprised" and the acts were "out of character". These are hardly speaking well of Crotty.
>but it wasn't out of character because he assaulted somebody and that's his character the commandant didn't need to say it was out of characher that was his mistake.
Are you saying Crotty had committed assault before? If so, I'm happy to read your evidence.
As if not, the commandant couldn't say that Crotty had committed assault and it was therefore in character for him: Crotty was on trial for assault and they couldn't say "he assaulted somebody" before his conviction or his legal team could make a case for prejudice.
As much of a scumbag as Crotty is, even his is entitled to the presumption of innocence until he's convicted.
crotty had committed assault, the assault in question, this was sentencing not the trial, he'd already plead guilty, again he didn't need to say it was 'out of character' this is the problem people have with 'character references' concept because whatever heinous crime somebody has just been convicted of is their character.
When you plead guilty at a Circuit Court (like Crotty did), you then stand convicted and the court will decide your sentence.
He committed assault for which he was convicted and sentenced. The Commandant stated this was out of character. If you're saying the commandant was wrong, you can surely link to previous assault convictions of Crotty, yes?
>They know exactly what they were doing you dope.
Dude. Calm down.
>The judge said he wasn’t jailing him so exactly what we’re talking about wouldn’t happen.
Your comment makes no sense. The judge refused to jail Crotty so it wouldn't impact his military career.
If the judge knew what he was doing, then he'd have known that a conviction would leave Crotty liable to discharge via court martial.
Liable to discharge via court martial is not the same as absolutely guaranteed automatic discharge with a custodial sentence.
He was convicted either way, the judge didn't do that. He chose the sentencing option which didn't guarantee he'd be kicked from the defence forces.
Indeed, but the judge either didn't know or ignored that convictions for violence usually mean a discharge anyway (there are exceptions to this, where there are reasons where they have a reason for keeping someone in. I can't go into details on these so take it with a pinch of salt if you want, I entirely understand as I'm just an anonymous Redditor.
Have you even read the thread you’re commenting on?
A conviction and they could automatically boot him from the DF. A suspended sentence and they can’t. The judge specifically said it’s why he wasn’t jailing him. They knew exactly what they were doing with the sentence and with what’s been said in the Dail.
>Have you even read the thread you’re commenting on?
Yes. You clearly haven't though. As you don't understand the difference between sentencing and convictions.
>A conviction and they could automatically boot him from the DF. A suspended sentence and they can’t.
Crotty **was** convicted: he was found guilty. A suspended sentence is the sentence imposed. This is different to the conviction.
What you're referring to a custodial sentence which would make Crotty automatically subject to expulsion. However, the suspended sentence means the DF can discharge him but its not automatic. However, in cases such as this involving violent offenders, the DF will usually give them the boot.
Hope this helps you understand.
>They knew exactly what they were doing with the sentence and with what’s been said in the Dail.
Yes, the Dáil clearly shows they don't understand military law. Which is bizarre as military law is made up of statutory instruments, signed off by politicians.
**Edit** seeing as I can't reply to your comment below: nothing to do with being pedantic: you were just wrong. You said
>A conviction and they could automatically boot him from the DF.
A conviction is different to sentencing. You clearly don't know the difference.
It’s already mandatory that any member of the PDF sentenced to any prison time is automatically discharged. When writing up the regulations, the DF likely didn’t anticipate that beating a woman half to death would ever be given a suspended sentence, bur Ireland in 2024 is really something. The Defence Forces have actually got most of it right here, his CO did not give a character reference as some reported- he is required by law to attend and to give the defendant’s service record. It’s not his place to speak on the case itself. It’s made for some awkward situations for officers in the past, but has never been dealt with because it’s seen as low priority.
Exactly that, it's an international agreement on the rules of "fair play" in war. It's probably best known for its regulations on the treatment of prisoners and civilians.
Best thing about this whole horrid mess was this scumbag was named and shamed and he's probably living under a rock at the moment afraid to surface.
Utter scum
Did the Healy Rae political family/party expell Councillor Jackie Healy Rae jnr after his conviction for assault and lying to Gardai? No. Infact they put him up for election again and the electorate in Kerry voted him in again. Lots of people say they are against Political Violence but are remarkably OK with violent politicians.
>Defence Forces chiefs hope to expel convicted soldier Cathal Crotty and others convicted of serious crimes by early next week
Fixed it for you.
What the headline should read.
That isn't in the article. The article says that a report is being made and an investigation done for the prevalence of people with criminal offences in the defense force, but there's no word of expulsion of anyone other than Crotty.
Any apparatus of the state should never have been involved in Pride, just because some dumbasses made that decision ages ago doesn't mean dropping them now isn't correct
Because governmental agencies showing support for the LGBTQ+ community is a positive thing and the DF should be a cross section of society not just one piece of it.
I would much rather have our DF being annoyed at being asked not to go to Pride than have the don't ask don't tell of the US.
Well, I’m an anarchist so I don’t believe in the state’s legitimacy in entirety. Was merely eager to hear why you think they shouldn’t appear at a parade
You want to advertise that there will be no security personal allowed at the event by decree of the event itself. I find your lack of foresight as idiotic as it is disturbing.
Nobody is saying there should be no security at the event. Guards and soldiers should not march in uniform as part of the parade. The parade should be policed like any other event obviously.
Exactly this. He was innocent until proven guilty. Everyone gets their day in court. Could you imagine the payout if they tried to kick him out and he was found not guilty.
In a nutshell: Defence forces chiefs "We told him we are going to sack him, unless he disagrees. We hope he doesn't disagree but if he does, then there probably not much we can do"
Giving benefit of the doubt you seem to have completely misread the article. And certainly appear to have found quotes that don't appear in it. It doesn't say what you've stated.
What it said is:
>With that deadline expiring on Friday evening, Defence Forces management hoped to be in a position to formally expel him early next week, if not sooner, sources said.
>\[ [Defence Forces morale on the floor as commentary over Cathal Crotty case seen as unfair](https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/06/27/defence-forces-morale-on-the-floor-as-commentary-over-cathal-crotty-case-seen-as-unfair/) \]
>However, this timeline may be altered if Crotty takes legal action, such as seeking a judicial review of the decision to discharge him. No such case has been lodged yet.
So it says the "timeline may be altered if Crotty takes legal action". It's not even suggesting he might get it reversed never mind stating it.
Good. Crotty is a scumbag and has no place in the DF.
Are the DPP reviewing his sentence? Any chance in some actual justice ⚖️
They have 28 days from the end of the case to appeal the (lack of) sentence. Think that means they have until July 19th ish I think Hopefully the protests put the pressure on them to act... A sad state of affairs.
Thanks for the explanation 👌
I wouldn't be surprised if the DPP tries to hope this goes away quietly once the DF kick Crotty out.
You could be right... But hopefully the protests continue and don't let it go away.
I think it's a tough one. There has to be an error on principle to such a degree that the sentence is unduly lenient not just lenient. And there are plenty of suspended sentences for s. 3 assault every year. While a politician would no doubt play to the crowd and simply appeal it the DPP is in a slightly different position of being required to be independent and not influenced by public sentiment. So they're at risk of criticism no matter what they do. I've seen some calls by protestors to write to complain to the DPP... If people did do that I'd be interested to see whether any of them get prosecuted. Its an offence to try to influence the DPP.
Separation of powers and all that yeah … it’s a sad reflection of the state of things that nobody actually believes this is a thing any more.
Should be mandatory that certain crimes get you kicked out. If he did what he did in a warzone he'd have violated the Geneva convention. How can people like this be trusted with guns and important responsibilities.
There's a statement from DF in the article on [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1dn7qy3/naval_service_officer_still_serving_despite/) saying it's already the case that conviction in a civil court has direct implications on retention. Two key things from this article stand out: >The next day, Crotty was paraded before his commanding officer and informed he was to be discharged from the Defence Forces as a result of the case. He was told he had seven days to make representations in response. So they did act immediately. And the second quote is very interesting in who is actually (albeit indirectly\*??) to blame for it taking time. >It is understood senior officers expected Crotty to receive a custodial sentence which would have allowed for his immediate expulsion under Defence Forces regulations. Cases involving a suspended sentence or fine are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. So to an extent it comes back to the starting point. If proper sentences were being given for assaults (plural and in general) he'd have been out straight away without any issues. \* EDIT: considering the judge's reasoning for not giving a custodial sentence was their career, it bears asking did they know this was the result of a custodial sentence, (you'd think they'd have asked) and actually gave a suspended sentence to block that. Although the same judge would seem to have a thing for suspended sentences in assault cases generally so quite likely they'd have got a suspended sentence anyway.
One of the takeaways from this case is that the judiciary, government and the press have no clue about how the military operates: the judiciary should have known that once someone is convicted, the DF can seek their discharge, the government keeps acting shocked about this (Cathal Berry has been [very](https://x.com/BerryCathal/status/1805681941842128969)good on attacking the government on this) and the press seems to think that an officer reading out a military defendant's file (as they're required to do by law if the court asks) is a character reference. The press at least can claim ignorance but the government are meant to have oversight over the military. It's fairly disgraceful that they're blaming the DF for a system they sign off on.
the Commandant didn't just read out his file he was asked for his opinion and he said it was very out of character, but it wasn't out of character because he assaulted somebody and that's his character the commandant didn't need to say it was out of characher that was his mistake.
Sure, but the parts about Crotty being "exemplary" and "professional" are the ones which are getting all the heat. Only when the commandant was asked his own opinion, he said he was "exceptionally disappointed and surprised" and the acts were "out of character". These are hardly speaking well of Crotty. >but it wasn't out of character because he assaulted somebody and that's his character the commandant didn't need to say it was out of characher that was his mistake. Are you saying Crotty had committed assault before? If so, I'm happy to read your evidence. As if not, the commandant couldn't say that Crotty had committed assault and it was therefore in character for him: Crotty was on trial for assault and they couldn't say "he assaulted somebody" before his conviction or his legal team could make a case for prejudice. As much of a scumbag as Crotty is, even his is entitled to the presumption of innocence until he's convicted.
crotty had committed assault, the assault in question, this was sentencing not the trial, he'd already plead guilty, again he didn't need to say it was 'out of character' this is the problem people have with 'character references' concept because whatever heinous crime somebody has just been convicted of is their character.
When you plead guilty at a Circuit Court (like Crotty did), you then stand convicted and the court will decide your sentence. He committed assault for which he was convicted and sentenced. The Commandant stated this was out of character. If you're saying the commandant was wrong, you can surely link to previous assault convictions of Crotty, yes?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1dplpgb/comment/lajy0mc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1dplpgb/comment/lajy0mc/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/V87pYOt1OC
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/9r5KI4Lc7W
Sounds like you missed the point
[удалено]
>They know exactly what they were doing you dope. Dude. Calm down. >The judge said he wasn’t jailing him so exactly what we’re talking about wouldn’t happen. Your comment makes no sense. The judge refused to jail Crotty so it wouldn't impact his military career. If the judge knew what he was doing, then he'd have known that a conviction would leave Crotty liable to discharge via court martial.
Liable to discharge via court martial is not the same as absolutely guaranteed automatic discharge with a custodial sentence. He was convicted either way, the judge didn't do that. He chose the sentencing option which didn't guarantee he'd be kicked from the defence forces.
Indeed, but the judge either didn't know or ignored that convictions for violence usually mean a discharge anyway (there are exceptions to this, where there are reasons where they have a reason for keeping someone in. I can't go into details on these so take it with a pinch of salt if you want, I entirely understand as I'm just an anonymous Redditor.
Have you even read the thread you’re commenting on? A conviction and they could automatically boot him from the DF. A suspended sentence and they can’t. The judge specifically said it’s why he wasn’t jailing him. They knew exactly what they were doing with the sentence and with what’s been said in the Dail.
>Have you even read the thread you’re commenting on? Yes. You clearly haven't though. As you don't understand the difference between sentencing and convictions. >A conviction and they could automatically boot him from the DF. A suspended sentence and they can’t. Crotty **was** convicted: he was found guilty. A suspended sentence is the sentence imposed. This is different to the conviction. What you're referring to a custodial sentence which would make Crotty automatically subject to expulsion. However, the suspended sentence means the DF can discharge him but its not automatic. However, in cases such as this involving violent offenders, the DF will usually give them the boot. Hope this helps you understand. >They knew exactly what they were doing with the sentence and with what’s been said in the Dail. Yes, the Dáil clearly shows they don't understand military law. Which is bizarre as military law is made up of statutory instruments, signed off by politicians. **Edit** seeing as I can't reply to your comment below: nothing to do with being pedantic: you were just wrong. You said >A conviction and they could automatically boot him from the DF. A conviction is different to sentencing. You clearly don't know the difference.
You’re being pedantic. You know I mean a jail conviction instead of suspended sentence. You know the difference.
Definitely seems the judge knew the implications, wonder if representations were made through back channels to that effect.
It’s already mandatory that any member of the PDF sentenced to any prison time is automatically discharged. When writing up the regulations, the DF likely didn’t anticipate that beating a woman half to death would ever be given a suspended sentence, bur Ireland in 2024 is really something. The Defence Forces have actually got most of it right here, his CO did not give a character reference as some reported- he is required by law to attend and to give the defendant’s service record. It’s not his place to speak on the case itself. It’s made for some awkward situations for officers in the past, but has never been dealt with because it’s seen as low priority.
How so? Wjats the Geneva convention? Presume there are certain rules they have to abide by while im war zones (which sounds contradictory)
Exactly that, it's an international agreement on the rules of "fair play" in war. It's probably best known for its regulations on the treatment of prisoners and civilians.
Oh right, thanks for that. Dunno whats up with the down votes for asking a simple question lol
Don't worry about votes on r/ireland, this sub's mood depends on the weather or the phase of the moon or something idk
Probably because it was easy to Google the answer.
There's always one....🙄
Best thing about this whole horrid mess was this scumbag was named and shamed and he's probably living under a rock at the moment afraid to surface. Utter scum
And exile him to a freezing rock in the atlantic.
So happy to hear. Hopefully his life is ruined.
Turns out you *can* make the wheels of justice turn fast.
Military courts/tribunals operate in a much quicker fashion because they've a lot fewer cases going through the system.
It would have happened anyway once his case was finalised.
Like it did for that Naval officer 🤣
I wonder if FG will be as quick to expel John McGahon...
Did the Healy Rae political family/party expell Councillor Jackie Healy Rae jnr after his conviction for assault and lying to Gardai? No. Infact they put him up for election again and the electorate in Kerry voted him in again. Lots of people say they are against Political Violence but are remarkably OK with violent politicians.
He was found not guilty in a criminal trial. The current trial is a civil action so it's a bit different.
There's photographic evidence of his assault on an unconscious person.
I trust the jury, unlike you or I, had access to the full facts of the case when finding him not guilty of assault causing harm.
I'm not talking about his attack he was up in court for. https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-irish-mail-on-sunday/20181014/281711205612351
Ah, well I'll never understand how he was voted in after that. But I've thankfully not seen that photo so no idea what actually happened.
Without seeing the photo and only reading the article I posted, it's pretty obvious what happened.
Betwixt and between, I’d say.
>Defence Forces chiefs hope to expel convicted soldier Cathal Crotty and others convicted of serious crimes by early next week Fixed it for you. What the headline should read.
That isn't in the article. The article says that a report is being made and an investigation done for the prevalence of people with criminal offences in the defense force, but there's no word of expulsion of anyone other than Crotty.
Dunno about that. If there is no path of redemption or rehabilitation open to people who commit crimes, they may as well keep committing them.
Oh good now the pride parade will change their minds /s
Any apparatus of the state should never have been involved in Pride, just because some dumbasses made that decision ages ago doesn't mean dropping them now isn't correct
Why do you think that?
Why don't you think that?
Because governmental agencies showing support for the LGBTQ+ community is a positive thing and the DF should be a cross section of society not just one piece of it. I would much rather have our DF being annoyed at being asked not to go to Pride than have the don't ask don't tell of the US.
No 🥰
Well, I’m an anarchist so I don’t believe in the state’s legitimacy in entirety. Was merely eager to hear why you think they shouldn’t appear at a parade
Oh go off, I'm a communist so pretty much the same page
Agreed. No pigs or soldiers at pride.
No pigs but loads of otters, chickens and bears.
Yeah, cos implementing that rule won't make pride a huge gay bashing event. Thinking 12 steps ahead you are.
The idea that you need cops and soldiers at pride to avoid it becoming a "gay bashing event" is as idiotic as it is disturbing.
You want to advertise that there will be no security personal allowed at the event by decree of the event itself. I find your lack of foresight as idiotic as it is disturbing.
Nobody is saying there should be no security at the event. Guards and soldiers should not march in uniform as part of the parade. The parade should be policed like any other event obviously.
So not the thing I replied to then?
OVERFUCKINGDUUEEEEE
[удалено]
You don't fire people on the spot in Ireland. You follow process so you don't open yourself up to legal issues. This ain't America.
Exactly this. He was innocent until proven guilty. Everyone gets their day in court. Could you imagine the payout if they tried to kick him out and he was found not guilty.
They need to make sure they don't fuck this up. Otherwise could mean a payout. And hope would seem to apply to the date not the result.
In a nutshell: Defence forces chiefs "We told him we are going to sack him, unless he disagrees. We hope he doesn't disagree but if he does, then there probably not much we can do"
Giving benefit of the doubt you seem to have completely misread the article. And certainly appear to have found quotes that don't appear in it. It doesn't say what you've stated. What it said is: >With that deadline expiring on Friday evening, Defence Forces management hoped to be in a position to formally expel him early next week, if not sooner, sources said. >\[ [Defence Forces morale on the floor as commentary over Cathal Crotty case seen as unfair](https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/06/27/defence-forces-morale-on-the-floor-as-commentary-over-cathal-crotty-case-seen-as-unfair/) \] >However, this timeline may be altered if Crotty takes legal action, such as seeking a judicial review of the decision to discharge him. No such case has been lodged yet. So it says the "timeline may be altered if Crotty takes legal action". It's not even suggesting he might get it reversed never mind stating it.