Vincent Jennings

Absolutely.

You got it in one.

This is a situation where we want the state to acknowledge that the victims of crime, and in this instance, obviously, because I represent retailers, I'm speaking about retailers, but any victim of a crime who has suffered a financial loss.

that they are treated effectively as preferential creditors if the matter comes before the courts, and that the presenting guard, the DPP, must inform the judge that there is money outstanding or that compensation has been paid to allow that judge to take the decision as to how to dispense with any matters relating to a non-fine or otherwise.

Yeah, and I don't believe that actually the solicitor who represented the man actually said, this is for the poor box, he said he's brought €300 into court by way of mitigation.

And the judge should, I'll be perfectly honest with you, the judge should have actually said, because they knew that it was €125 worth of fuel had been stolen from these people, and it should have inquired, has compensation been paid?

It hadn't.

We know because they're members of ours.

And they should have said, OK, well, we'll take the 300 and 100 each to the service stations or at very bare minimum, although we'd argue against that, at very bare minimum, the cost of the fuel that had been lost.

That would not be unfair.

No, it doesn't bother me.

That's a matter for the courts.

It truly is.

I mean, look, I've got enough on my plate to worry about retailers.

This is, you know, I can have an opinion on a private matter.

But I mean, in this instance, no.

Yeah, and as you quite rightly pointed out, I mean, this was first highlighted back in 2004 by the Law Reform Commission, where they were very clear that there were difficulties that came from this, that some people could afford not to.

And others, they also pointed out that some judges could favour certain charities or some judges could be predisposed in a certain way.

Some judges don't operate the poor system.

Some operate it under a committee.