In the wake of a much-debated retirement, Judge Tom O’Donnell has drawn strong opinions from legal veterans, with some characterising his departure as “somewhat stark”. The controversy is owing to his final sentencing decision in the Limerick Circuit Criminal Court before he stepped down last Wednesday. His judgement created a nationwide firestorm after he chose to completely suspend the three-year prison term of army soldier, Cathal Crotty (22), from Parkroe Heights, Ardnacrusha, Co Clare. Crotty had been charged with savagely attacking Natasha O’Brien (24). O’Brien, the victim, was present in the public gallery and saw the uproar among TDs when the case was discussed and severely critiqued in the Dáil.
The violent incident in question took place in May 2022. Crotty was hurling homophobic slurs at passersby on O’Connell Street, Limerick, when O’Brien and a friend, who were unacquainted with Crotty, pleaded with him to stop. As a result, O’Brien fell victim to a brutal assault that resulted in a broken nose and concussion. Crotty continued to thrash her even as she started to lose consciousness, leaving her with the fear of imminent death. He later showcased his disregard for the assault, bragging on Snapchat about knocking O’Brien out.
When initially interrogated by police, Crotty contended that O’Brien had been the first to become aggressive. However, upon viewing CCTV footage, he conceded his guilt and confessed to the unwarranted attack. O’Donnell noted Crotty’s admission of guilt as a point of consideration while granting him a suspended sentence.
The victim, O’Brien, sought justice in her impact statement, not solely for herself, but as a stand against the violence she had been subjected to. After the judge’s ruling, she voiced her severe disapproval. In speaking to the Sunday Independent, she expressed hopes that O’Donnell would leave his profession carrying a weight of “absolute humiliation and remorse”.
O’Donnell ended his long-standing legal career upon turning 70 this week. He belongs to a lineage of lawyers, forming the third generation in a family legal practice that spans back to the 1890s. He officially became a solicitor in 1976 and ran a thorough criminal defence practice in Limerick, joining the firm Holmes O’Malley Sexton in 1991.
In 1998, he rose to the position of a District Court judge, advancing to Circuit Court judge in 2011. He was appointed to the Interim Judicial Council in 2012, a body whose role was to encourage judicial excellence and which later became the Judicial Council. His retirement ceremony, initially planned for earlier in the week, was postponed due to a scandal involving a sentencing decision.
The judge is deserving of the criticism he’s facing, according to a criminal law barrister not working in Limerick, although it’s unfortunate given his lengthy service. Unlike politicians, who can publicly admit their mistakes, the judge is left cornered with no room for redeeming himself.
According to the barrister, Crotty certainly deserved to be imprisoned, a perspective likely shared by majority of the Bar. If the barrister was defending him, she would have encouraged him to be prepared for jail time. The judgement may have been influenced by various factors such as Crotty’s acceptance of his guilty plea, his age, and steady employment, indicating that the judge may have let his compassion cloud his judgement.
Another experienced criminal law barrister, also not rooted in Limerick, expressed surprise over the judge’s decision, describing it as a poor decision. Nonetheless, he disagreed with some people’s interpretation that a guilty plea holds little significance when the evidence against the accused is overwhelming.
According to him, unexpected issues may arise even in a strong case during a trial. While determining sentences, judges first examine the maximum permissible penalty for the offence followed by a detailed analysis of the particular crime’s circumstances. This could include whether a weapon was used, if the crime was premeditated, or if the victim was attacked while down. This forms what is known as a “headline sentence”. Any reasons warranting a mitigation are then evaluated.
Not only is the offence itself a factor in sentencing, but also the individual guilty of the crime, the barrister pointed out.
When a judge contemplates the appropriate sentence for an accused individual, several factors come under consideration. These include whether the offender confessed guilt, exhibited remorse, maintained a good character in the past or is attempting to get through addiction issues. Subsequently, the judge evaluates the intended punishment, bearing in mind the general principle of proportionality.
Victim impact is an essential consideration. Despite the defendant’s good qualities, a committed crime’s destructive effect on the victim might necessitate a prison sentence. Such decisions also aim to dissuade others from similar conduct. The barrister highlighted punishment, deterrence, and potential rehabilitation as the objectives of sentencing. Regarding the Limerick case, he expressed surprise that a probation report had not been requested to gather more insightful details about Crotty.
The lack of such a report might have resulted from the judge’s imminent retirement, implying another judge might have carried out the sentencing. The barrister also expressed concerns about whether the judge effectively communicated the significance of a guilty plea to O’Brien.
The law profession – judges included – needs to emphasise the relevance of guilty pleas better and display more sensitivity towards victims’ vulnerabilities “even on a sentencing date”, the barrister suggested. Despite this, it is necessary to remember that enforcement of sentencing regards as an act of justice rather than retribution or vengeance.
Experienced attorneys who have interacted with O’Donnell, including Crotty’s legal counsel, lauded his judicial contributions and criticised the disparaging remarks about him, notably on social media platforms.
Barrister Erin O’Hagan fondly remembered her experiences with O’Donnell, calling him “an absolute pleasure to appear before, and an exceptional gentleman”. She stressed that his significant contributions throughout his lengthy career should be acknowledged, especially his impactful role in mitigating organised crime in Limerick during the early 2000s.
During an era when Limerick was grappling with high crime rates and residents remained fearful within their own homes, the moderating influence of Judge O’Donnell made the city streets safe once again. It is a memory that must not be pushed to oblivion, a lady recalled. Her description of some remarks made about him were “terribly wrong and utterly misinformed”.
She expressed her compassion for the retired Judge, referring to him as an exceptional example of his profession and suggested he should have received a more worthy farewell.
Barrister Yvonne Quinn painted O’Donnell as a decent and compassionate individual with an unyielding dedication as a member of the judiciary.
Sarah Ryan, a criminal defence attorney in Limerick who represented Crotty, voiced her concerns about the inflammatory language used against O’Donnell, which she feels could potentially jeopardize his personal safety.
She argued against demonizing this inherently good-natured, courteous, and diligent man, who had not displayed any traits justifying such assertions.
On the day of sentencing Crotty, Judge O’Donnell allocated a suspended two-year sentence to a teenager who was part of a group accused of robbing and assaulting a homeless man. Moreover, he sentenced a man of 37 to four years for a violent street theft and a 58-year-old man received a sentence of seven and a half years, with the final 18 months suspended, for possessing cocaine for supply or sale. Credit was given to all three for their guilty pleas and the latter two, excluding the teenager, held prior convictions.
The next step is anticipated to be an appeal against the Crotty verdict made by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Court of Appeals.
When asked for their view on the ruling, the Association of the Judges of Ireland declined, explaining that it would be inappropriate for it to provide insight on a case, especially given the conceivability of an appeal.