• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.



Sentencing for the rape of a child.

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,783
'Singing' priest and serial abuser Tony Walsh jailed for raping boy three times in 1980s

FORMER ‘SINGING’ PRIEST Tony Walsh has been jailed for seven and half years for raping a boy three times, once with a crucifix.

Anthony Walsh (62) committed the offence at a time when the maximum penalty for this offence, then legally termed indecent assault, was two years. But today Judge Elma Sheahan used her discretion to impose consecutive sentences.

The Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment 1990 increased the maximum penalty for sexually assaulting a child under 17 to 14 years.
Why wasn't Walsh charged with rape under common law -punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment?
 


blokesbloke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
23,298
I understand that Gary Glitter ended up with a much lighter sentence than the judge wanted or the current law would have allowed because of when the offence was committed.

Apparently the law was more lenient when the offence was committed and that obliged the judge to use the sentencing powers available when that law was in effect, meaning they could only impose the maximum sentence of 7 years.

The judge noted that would be considered a lenient sentence under sentencing guidelines for the same offence if it had happened today.

That may be what has happened here. Rape under common law might not be available if a specific act at the time specified what kind of offence it was and what sentencing options were available.

It looks like the judge in this case has done their best, as did the UK judge, by imposing as harsh a sentence as possible and then making the sentences consecutive rather than concurrent.

As I understand it, you only use common law offences when no specific Act exists. If one does or did exist, that takes precedence over common law.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,904
No need to be hysterical. Clearly the right sentence is 150 years, reduced to 120 for good behavior.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,904
This fella raped a kid with a crucifix. He must be possessed. I really wish I could kick the shyte out of him, but that's not the answer either. I am depressed now.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,874
This fella raped a kid with a crucifix. He must be possessed. I really wish I could kick the shyte out of him, but that's not the answer either. I am depressed now.
He's a priest. None of the other priests he hung out with had a problem with him. If he was an imam, or even a common or garden civilian Muslim would you be saying he wasnt really a Muslim? Like Fk you would. You'd blame his religion. :roll:
 

Old Mr Grouser

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
6,483
He's a priest. None of the other priests he hung out with had a problem with him. If he was an imam, or even a common or garden civilian Muslim would you be saying he wasnt really a Muslim? Like Fk you would. You'd blame his religion. :roll:
Very true. Paedophilia seems to be an Industrial Disease of the clergy - that's clergy of all religions, and married as well as single.

Have a look at Kathy Shaw's blog, Abuse Tracker.
 

milipod

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
7,809
The Goodfellas thing works for me a shovel and a bag of lime.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,226
The reason for the light sentence is that the penalty for indecent assault at the time the rapes happened prior to 1990 was just 2 years. So shes using her discretion to impose consecutive sentences to bring it up to 7.5 yrs. Under the Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment 1990 the penalty for sexually assaulting a minor aged 14-17 is up to 14 years.
 

derryman

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
10,843
He's a priest. None of the other priests he hung out with had a problem with him. If he was an imam, or even a common or garden civilian Muslim would you be saying he wasnt really a Muslim? Like Fk you would. You'd blame his religion. :roll:
I am of the same religion as this warped , evil criminal. There is nothing in my religion that encourages or excuses his actions. Every belief and tenet of my religion tells me that these are inexcusable evil actions for which I might pay more dearly than a jail sentence.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,783
Another such case.

Brother of Irish football legend Ray Treacy found guilty of indecently assaulting boy - Irish Mirror Online

A brother of soccer legend Ray Treacy who gagged a boy with a bar of soap before burning the child’s private parts and raping him in a toilet, has been found guilty of indecent assaults.

Christian Brother James Seamus Treacy, a sibling of Ireland soccer star and travel agent the late Ray Treacy, had denied two counts of indecently assaulting the boy in the 1970s.

Treacy, 75, also known to his victim as “Brother Treasaigh”, showed no emotion, as a jury of six men and six women found him guilty on both counts at Limerick Circuit Court.
I'm aware that sentencing for statutory offences rules out the maximum sentences for their equivalents in common law. For instance, the maximum punishment for rape under common law is life imprisonment.

So why was the maximum punishment for indecent assault set so low when that offence was created in law?

One would have thought that sex with a child under a certain age would have been automatically regarded as rape under common law as opposed to simply "indecent assualt" or "defilement".
 

Researchwill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
4,779
Brother of Irish football legend Ray Treacy found guilty of indecently assaulting boy - Irish Mirror Online



I'm aware that sentencing for statutory offences rules out the maximum sentences for their equivalents in common law. For instance, the maximum punishment for rape under common law is life imprisonment.

So why was the maximum punishment for indecent assault set so low when that offence was created in law?

One would have thought that sex with a child under a certain age would have been automatically regarded as rape under common law as opposed to simply "indecent assualt" or "defilement".
Yes one would think child rape would have been very serious, but sadly it was not considered so.

Rape under common law could only be between a man and a women. Hence why Section 4 rape introduced in 1990.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top