‘I do not apply one law to rich and another to poor’

DISTRICT Court Judge Michael Pattwell yesterday said he did not apply one law to the rich and one to the poor in the case of defendants who appeared before him.

The judge said this accusation was levelled against him in the case of Ballymaloe chef Tim Allen, who was convicted of possessing child pornography two years ago.

Judge Pattwell ordered Mr Allen to do 240 hours community service and make a "healthy" contribution of 40,000 to the local child charity, the Edith Wilkins Foundation, as a substitute for the nine-month jail term which the offence carried.

"I was accused of operating one law for the rich and one for the poor but except when I am required by the law to do it, I will not do this," Judge Pattwell told a UCC Law Society conference.

Judge Pattwell said that those who claim Mr Allen got off lightly for possessing child pornography, should go back and examine what he based his judgment on.

This was the sentencing scale of the British Sentencing Advisory Board, and the sentence he imposed was far tougher than what the board recommended in the Allen case, he said.

The judge said this money could be used to stop the street children in India where the foundation operates from being exploited for porn pictures.

Asked why he had not referred the Tim Allen case to the Circuit Court, like other District Court judges had done in similar subsequent cases of alleged possession of child pornography, Judge Pattwell said: "The Circuit Court was only an option if I believed that it was a genuine one did any of those people whose cases were referred to the Circuit Court get sentences more than I imposed?"

A recent Prime Time investigation found the judge had one of the highest records for sending offenders to jail.