b4mbi Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 the defendent was year above me at school. I remember him being bullied on more than one occasion. IMHO this left him mentally scarred and his behaviour since then (as has been reported..) has shown his mental unstability. I have every sympathy with the victim in this case if indeed it was an unprovoked attack (same has happened to me on this fair isle, although not to such a bad degree) the sentencing regardless of the "who you know" factor is outrageous. IMO he should be in a secure mental illness unit. the "finding religion" defence / showing remorse is a weak one although consideration should be given, but crime of physical abuse to another human is in my opinion the ABSOLUTE worst of crimes and instigatiors of such crimes should be punished accordingly by custodial sentences. there is no room in society for physical abuse. The inconsistency of sentencing is a real frustration at times here on the Island, although I accept that sometimes not ALL of the facts may be known to the general public. Anyone who knows first hand about a news item that is then reported in the press will tell you of it's 'factual' content. best wishes to the victim for a speedy recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKEYMOBILE Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I did my Masters Degree thesis on Crime rates in IOM and the effect of the birch. I've updated the figures every year since 1978 I agree drink is a strong factor Our crime rate is lower than most rural areas I was not being patronising, I have been there and seen many files in full. The titled Gentleman gave references in a foreign court as far as I rememeber, not this court, this time. Are you in the Masonic Directory? Just for the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 If only Mr. Heron had never met Mr. Brearley. Local history buffs might know there was a murder involved with that meeting! Murder lane , off Tynwald Street, was where the body was found. Regarding the case this thread is focussed on it really does seem there is a strong argument the AG should appeal the sentence. It seems an exceptionally light sentence given what facts the public have been made party to. However, the supposed power wielded by Freemasons is greatly over estimated on this forum. Most people belonging to the Masons go along for a drink and to socialise. They are a harmless bunch of eccentrics rather than an evil organisation plotting and conspiring to ensure justice isnt done. Its fairly common for defendants to produce testimonials as to their character and if the guy happens to know one or two Manx Worthies then I for one shouldnt be surprised to see them wheeled out as character witnesses. That seems to have happened in this case but what effect, if any, it had on the sentencing we wont know until the appeal. Lets hope the AG makes an appeal as there is something not quite right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Are you in the Masonic Directory? Just for the record. Absolutely not What an insult Coose your weapon, name your second and state where we can meet at dawn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Two pages further on in the Examiner [edited - this said "directory" first - God knows what I was thinking] some bloke got 4 years - also from Montgomery - for possessing £800 worth of cocaine. Do you feel more at risk from a man to sells drugs to people who want drugs, or from a man who hides murdered bodies and then throttles someone until they are unconscious. This guy has had his second chance already. Montgomery should be dismissed for this disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 SIR Miles Walker is the latest big political name to back Chief Minister Richard Corkill following the news he and his wife Julie are being investigated by police. The investigation, by the serious crime unit, relates to grants paid to the Corkills by the Department of Tourism and Leisure for tourist accommodation at their home, Ballacain, Onchan. The couple have not yet been contacted by the police. Last week Mr Corkill received public backing from respected former clerk of Tynwald Professor St John Bates. Sir Miles, chief minister from 1986 to 1996, said: 'As far as Mr and Mrs Corkill are concerned I find it very hard to believe that they could be involved in any criminal activity.' What does this tell you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 This idiot's next victim should sue both Robin Oake and Sir Miles Walker for contributing to his fate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 What does this tell you That you're trying to derail a thread into another Ned theme to serve your own interests by posting quotes from news articles dated 27th September 2004? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Maybe it ytells us that Sir M and Robin O have poor judgement, well we knew that. None of this tells us the legal system stinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castle Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Yes, yes it does. It shows that the week judiciary are not independent at all and when confronted by people with titles and who are big in the various societies they buckle. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, especially when it is loads. Thieawin, it is nice to see you here providing informed opinion but you are trying smoke and mirrors whitewash but by sheer definition you have been nurtured by the system all these years and been very, very, very well recompensed. The system stinks, stinks, stinks. The system, for example gets 'that nice looking Mr Doyle' to give a jolly hard sentence to the occasional thug to give the masses a bit of supposed confidence, but at the end of the day the legal system is there to heavily line the pockets of those that come on board and toe its line and also to protects the clubby clubbies, powers that be and their families. It is about time that the judiciary and their matey mates realised that they do not have a monopoly on intellect and realisation. Those days for them are fast disappearing. I say again, the Manx Legal System stinks, stinks, stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 I do hope that as many people can find it in their hearts to write into the Examiner about this disgrace as did for some cockney actor slagging off the island. It appears to me to be a matter of much greater substance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Yes, yes it does. You believe what you want to believe through the paranoia. I know the truth as a long time insider, who has not joined the societies you refer to or succumbed to the supposed conspiracies. It shows that the week judiciary are not independent at all and when confronted by people with titles and who are big in the various societies they buckle. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, especially when it is loads. How does it show the judiciary are weak? The reference was from Robin Oake. How does he feed, pay or influence a law officer of the crown with virtual total tenure, some one he does not pay, so there can be no biting of feeding hands, no evidence that Montogomerie is in Masons, no evidence of a title being involved. Sir M gave evidence in a different case in a foreign country, how do you allege that influenced Montgomerie in this case. Thieawin, it is nice to see you here providing informed opinion but you are trying smoke and mirrors whitewash but by sheer definition you have been nurtured by the system all these years and been very, very, very well recompensed. I have never been well recompensed for criminal law. I started at £7.00 per hour on Criminal legal Aid in 1982! it is now £77 for time at the Police Station in the middle of the night. I sometoimes do 7 nights in a row. If I am lucky and I am doing a big case, which I don't do any more anyway, its at £104 and out of that I have to pay rent, staff, law books etc The system stinks, stinks, stinks. Why? Why? Why?, be specific, maybe it does, but not just because you say so. Say why? Please. The system, for example gets 'that nice looking Mr Doyle' to give a jolly hard sentence to the occasional thug to give the masses a bit of supposed confidence, Is that the resaon we have the highest imprisonment rate per 100,000 population in Europe, That fact and your conclusion are wholly incompatible. We are more barbaric than anywhere else. Prison does not work, other than as a holding pen to get people pff the streets. but at the end of the day the legal system is there to heavily line the pockets of those that come on board and toe its line and also to protects the clubby clubbies, Who they and what laweyers do you say are doing it? Athol Street may have been masonic and OKW in past, but its no longer true. We have men and women, protestants and catholics (and agnostics, atheists and Jews and heaven knows what else) peole of different ethnic origins, gays, lesbians, even some manxies, people who are prepared to buck and challenge the system and do it for little recompense. andpowers that be and their families. Oh dear oh dear you have got it bad! I will sue any one for any one if there is a good case. I couldn't care less how high and mighty the defendant is. Most of my colleagues are the same. Of course the Defendant has the same right to good representation. It is about time that the judiciary and their matey mates realised that they do not have a monopoly on intellect and realisation. Those days for them are fast disappearing. You have your opinion, I have mine, and I happen to believe that the facts support my view. Even the High Bailiff who gets so much paper coverage with outrageous remarks from the bench is fundamentally fair in hearing and sentencing. Shame he likes self publicity so much. I have only seen one person ever try tp play the Masonic card and I think the late Deemster H W Callow, a top notch high arching Master of the art, gave him a longer sentence for his temerity I say again, the Manx Legal System stinks, stinks, stinks. At the end its sticks and stones. I accept we have to have confidence in the system, but its unsupported abuse like this that destroys confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 I don't make any secret of my identity, visit my profile or read some of my other posts 1. I don't know where you get 90% from, justify please. I am speaking for myself, I am not afraid, never have been. I don't think others are. mind you I might just belong to the awkward squad. 2. No win no fee is ilegal in IOM, I made submssions to the Legal Aid Commission, Government continues to sit on it. £350 per hour, and I have been there, is for large commercial cases and very experienced senior advocates, and we have several who would be Q.C.'s if they were practising in England, or because they think you have duff case, don't want to turn you down and are hoping they will price you out, but are willing to accept your instructions if they are insulted eneough 3. Rules on recoverable costs here are quite good. I should know, I drafted them. They are better now, since 2001, when Order 48A of the High Court Rules came in, than they have ever been. if you get a good advocate who knows the short cuts and you are a good client who doesn't need mollycoddling asking lots of irrelevant stuff you should recover nearly 100%. If on the other hand you have to be chased for instructions, or if your advocate does not get on with it, you may get less, much less. You generally only get recovery of what was strictly necessary if the other side have to pay, unless they have behaved spectacularly badly and you get an indemnity order. 4. happens all the time mate. there are lots of cases where the judges recuse themselves and acting demsters are appointed. I don't mix socially with other advocates or the judiciary, so cannot comment about that. 5.Again give examples. Human Rights is not in and is in any event irrelevant. Its rehabilitation of offenders the affects this. The rule here and in England in criminal cases is that the prosecutorhas the full record and hands it up to the judge who is to sentence. he knows what he can, and cannot refer to. In civil cases no advocate can refer to a spent case without applying to the judge first and with the other side having the right to opppose. It may or may not be relevant to the case. The press should not report spent convictions, but that is the press, not the courts, or the advocates. Final point, and I am reminding you that neither of us know all the facts. I am relying on the facts on the second case that I have managed to deduce from the report which is posted at the start of this topic. I do not know of the other case. The case every one is so hot under the collar about was in law a first offence. The offence in Ireland , however serious, was a foreign conviction. I'm not sure what account should be taken of a conviction somewhere else. You might be convicted of something abroad which is legal here. If you are convicted of Drunk Driving, for the second time within the specified period, you do not get the automatic 5 year ban if your first DD conviction was in England or Ireland or Spain, just if it was in the IOM. In my opinion very little notice should have been taken of the Irish conviction under the law as it now stands So seems this second assailant was also a first offender in that sense. Very "the law is a Ass", I know, but I think that that is the law. I am neither praising it or condoning it or criticising it. Just trying to explain. If you don't like the law ask your MHK to get it changed. Don't bame the judge and the Advocates.We just work within those type of rules. As for charging and seeing it through to court, questioing is done by thye police, often late at night, charging is done by the custody sergeant with advice from the Attorney Generals office, often out of hours without sight of all the statements. Once they have all the papers the prosecutor might think that there is nota runnable case as charged, for instance, hinted at in the article, there is a good self defence defence available. Of course to prove intent to kill maybe very difficult. It gets reduced to a charge that is readily proveable. The Defendant agrees to pl;ead guilty to the lesser charge and it saves a fortnight in court and huge cost. I will not comment on the sentence. Montgomerie thought it right with full access to all the papers and information, including medicals on the aggrieved. If it is wrong the AG should appeal it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5-demerits Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 If by the way you post your saying your an Advocate, if so then answer the following truthfully please. 1. A plaintiff wants to take on someone in court that is or has a bit of power, why is it that 90% of Athol St wont take the case on. We can all choose whom we work for or they may have a conflict of interest. Or they may just think you are a bit of a chancer and they wont get their fees out of you so why should they bother ? There could be a multitude of reasons. 2. Local Advocates all think the are good, they charge enough £350ph+, being that they are that good why wont they take cases on no win no fee. Maybe they think you don’t have a chance of winning, then a no win no fee basis would make poor commercial sense unless you are looking for a charitable donation. 4. It is well know that some of the top brass in the legal system are social friends with those that are on trial, how can this be allowed, should a independant from the UK not be used. We live on an island with approximately 80,000 people, it would be unreasonable to expect people not to know each other. Get real. 5. Manx Advocates can get away with breaking Human rights in the cxourts with no fear of prosicution, ie bringing up a persons record that in the eyes of the law and the PNC its spent, and by bringing up a spent record is broadcasting to a possible employer, thus putting an innocent persons job at risk. Bringing up your previous convictions is standard practice, especially if you are purporting to be an honest, trustworthy and upstanding individual and your convictions show otherwise. You should read the rehabilitation of offenders act and understand its content and intent. Stating a fact in court does not in any way break your human rights. Back op topic, the sentencing does seem in this case not to fit the crime, however we do not have all the information that the court has to hand. I have no doubt if the AG's office think the sentencing was unduly lenient then they will do all they can to have this reviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 I find all the cloak and dagger stuff over identity and the childish glee at unmasking on this site very childish Quoted for truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.