Abbeylara report to be published Thursday

Sparks

In case noone's seen this yet (though I think that may be doubtful!):

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0717/abbeylara.html

Abbeylara report to be published Thursday
17 July 2006 22:27

The report into the shooting of John Carthy in Abbeylara, Co Longford, six years ago will be published on Thursday, 20 July.

The Tribunal, chaired by retired High Court Judge Mr Justice Robert Barr, sat for 208 days during which 170 witnesses were called, including members of the Garda Emergency Response Unit.

The publication of the final report has been delayed several times but a spokesperson for the tribunal confirmed this afternoon that the report will be presented to the clerk of the Dáil on Thursday morning.

Rovi

On Five Seven Live (RTE Radio 1) now/soon!- http://www.rte.ie/radio1/fivesevenlive/

Sparks

Also mentioned on Morning Ireland this morning with an interview with Des Crofton (for just under a minute).

It's out today, sometime in the next hour. I'll pick up a copy before lunchtime today and post anything I find in here. Anyone else who wants a copy, it's the Government Publications Office on Molesworth Street (runs from Dawson to Kildare street and ends at the Dail just in case anyone doesn't know) and it'll cost €5.

Rovi

There's going to be "extensive coverage" of the report on the News at One, and Derek Davis is doing something on it on Liveline afterwards, both on RTE Radio 1.

Sparks

Have my copy here. 744 pages!
Only just starting into it, but Appendix 8 is of interest - it's the proposed new application/renewal form... all 10 pages of it. Including questions like "During the past 2 years have you experienced a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankrupcy?", "Have you passed a recognised firearms safety course?", requests for names and addresses for two referees, one of which to be "an adult close relative", the other "a person over 30 years of age, resident in Ireland, who has known the applicant for upwards of five years and is a person of good standing and repute".
These references must sign a decleration that the applicant has truthfully filled out the form (to the best of their knowlege), that the photos enclosed with the form are accurate, and that they know of no reason why the applicant couldn't get his licence in the interest of safety. And it also says that the reference understands "that it is a criminal offence knowingly or recklessly to make a false statement in order to procure a firearm certificate".

Hmmmmm.

Sparks

Okay, going through it; page 412 deals with Carthy's shotgun being confiscated the first time. Apparently, there was a rumour that he'd threatened to shoot kids using the handball court he'd rebuilt. Noone ever made a complaint, noone ever admitted to hearing him say it, but when he got into a dispute with his employer, who he was starting to sue for wrongful dismissal, his employer's wife complained to the Gardai and repeated this rumour and said that she and her husband were in fear for their lives. The gardai decided to confiscate the shotgun, which they did through the subterfuge of telling him that a temporary custody order had been issued. Carthy spent the next two months seeking it's return once he discovered this, and succeeded in doing so.

The tribunal basicly says that the complaints were groundless and while it doesn't say the gardai did the wrong thing, it does say that it led to him distrusting the gardai as a result (which probably had an effect on the siege itself).

I have to say, that's quite different from the stories I'd been told as to how he lost his shotgun...

Sparks

All of chapter 13 is on gun licencing laws...

17HMR

Dropped the following email to the garda press office (gpro@iol.ie) :

Sad to see some of the comments made in relation to the Abbeylarra incident.

Seems to me the Gardai handled a difficult situation very well: no members of the public killed or injured, no Gardai killed or injured. Hard to see how you could have had a better result under the circumstances.

(All very well making recommendations after the fact and after years of deliberation and consideration.)

Sounds like the guys on the ground on the day are going to get a roasting in the press....

Chopperdog

17HMR wrote:

Seems to me the Gardai handled a difficult situation very well: no members of the public killed or injured, no Gardai killed or injured.QUOTE]


In light of your above comment, what do you infer that John McCarthy was?

civdef

There's a thread in the politics section about this report, and another in AH. This thread is soley for discussing the report as it pertains to shooting sports and firearms licencing.in particular. Other aspects are best discussed elsewhere.

Sparks

Well, there's a lot of testimony against needing medical certs or having your GP tell the gardai if you're a danger with a firearms licence, and Barr agrees that it wouldn't work.

Barr says there are five questions with regard to licencing laws:
1) Should medical certs be a mandatory requirement?
No, but Gardai should be allowed to contact your GP if something arises, which they're not allowed do now.

2) Should more powers to confiscate firearms be given to the Gardai?
No, they have sufficient authority now.

3) Should the licence holder's doctor or soliciter be required to tell the Gardai if he/she thinks the licence holder has become a danger with a firearm?
It should not be mandatory, but the law should be changed, and health professionals' ethical codes as well, to permit individual practitioners to report such concerns without being charged with breaking their confidentiality obligations

4) Should the immediate adult family have a duty to seek for the revoking of a firearms licence if they think the licence holder has become a danger?
No, it would be unworkable to be mandatory. However, it should be seen as common sense by the family.

5) Should the licence holder have a right of appeal if the licence is revoked on the grounds of mental health?
There should be an appeals mechanism for all such cases, not one for one set of grounds alone; the NARGC's recommendation that such appeal be to a tribune with at least one medically qualified professional is too akward, in Barr's view; he supports the District Court appeals process that the Minister for Justice was considering during the sixth module, back in 2003...

There are other recommendations;

• A new application form, the one in appendix 8
• Two referees to be named on that form
• Greater consistency in the superintendent's application of the law (he mentions Des Crofton and the NRPAI and the ISA here)
• Formal guidelines should be issued to ensure the above consistency, these should be published and made available to anyone who is an interested party (all of us, in other words)
• One overall chief superintendent or higher should oversee the entire licencing procedure and liase with the NARGC and superintendents. The NRPAI is not mentioned here. He also says that Dunne v. Donoghue does not have to be thrown out to achieve this (which is what the CJB did).
• Barr recommends that every superintendent should meet twice a year with the representatives of all gun clubs in their areas to discuss any problems that may arise with licencing. Again, he's referring to the NARGC alone here.
• He also recommends that the chief super in charge of the entire licencing procedure meet at least once a year with a delegation from the NARGC. The NRPAI and other bodies are not only not mentioned, but the NARGC is stated to be the primary body for those who are interested in shooting as a sport. He also recommends that they be given a voice in proposing changes to statute law.
• He recommends that all applicants be qualified and competent on the firearm they want to get a licence for; and says at some length that the NARGC should issue the competency certificates, and says that the NARGC should develop the competency course with the Gardai, which would be mandatory for all licence applicants. Other bodies like the NRPAI are not mentioned anywhere in any of this.
• He also recommends secure storage for firearms.

Clare gunner

Fun,fun,and more fun:rolleyes: :rolleyes: .Not to mind the usual insular thinking in some cases.Whats the betting the recommendations against medical certs etc,will now become "policy"??

Sparks

Whats the betting the recommendations against medical certs etc,will now become "policy"??

Actually, I'd say it's fairly unlikely that you'll have to produce a cert from a psychologist given that outcome, but as to whether or not your medical records are going to see a lot more of the local Garda HQ... I'd say even money.

Clare gunner

That will be intresting too Sparks.Does mean your whole medical records or just that relating to your screws being tightend sufficently??
As to whether my ingrown toenails have any revelance to me being fit to own a gun is debateable.:rolleyes:

Sparks

Does mean your whole medical records or just that relating to your screws being tightend sufficently??

There wasn't any distinction made in the CJB, though they originally listed nurses, dentists, opticians and so forth as being contactable with regard to your application. That did get whittled down to your doctor or psychologist though.

mcguiver

If a doctor feels there is grounds for a patient not holding a drivers licence there is legislation that allows them to contact Gardai and they can withdraw the licence, surely this would be good legislation to look at for shooters also.

The incidents was unfortunate and there where no winners.
The report says that non lethal weapons such as tazers should have been available.... personally I don't think tazer V shotgun is a good option.

I'm actually starting work on a dissertation regarding how the firearms application could be improved, and thats an area I'd love to get some opinions on..... but rather than spoil this thread I'll start another (if thats ok with the mods).

Sparks

mcguiver wrote:

If a doctor feels there is grounds for a patient not holding a drivers licence there is legislation that allows them to contact Gardai and they can withdraw the licence, surely this would be good legislation to look at for shooters also.

That's precisely what Barr says. Thing is, there's no law stopping them doing so now, merely the code of ethics of the medical profession, and for mental health practitioners at least, it's specifically covered and permitted. Barr was just asking that that be restated more clearly.

The report says that non lethal weapons such as tazers should have been available.... personally I don't think tazer V shotgun is a good option.

It also says that the siege should never have gotten to that point in the first place. And frankly, if he was shot from behind, he didn't see the gardai that pulled the trigger, so whether it was a pistol or a tazer wouldn't have mattered enormously from the point of view of risk to the gardai. Especially as there were several there armed with pistols and uzis.

I'm actually starting work on a dissertation regarding how the firearms application could be improved, and thats an area I'd love to get some opinions on..... but rather than spoil this thread I'll start another (if thats ok with the mods).

Go for it.

Clare gunner

mcguiver wrote:

If a doctor feels there is grounds for a patient not holding a drivers licence there is legislation that allows them to contact Gardai and they can withdraw the licence, surely this would be good legislation to look at for shooters also.

The incidents was unfortunate and there where no winners.
The report says that non lethal weapons such as tazers should have been available.... personally I don't think tazer V shotgun is a good option.

I'm actually starting work on a dissertation regarding how the firearms application could be improved, and thats an area I'd love to get some opinions on..... but rather than spoil this thread I'll start another (if thats ok with the mods).

Trust me MacG ,you get hit by a tazer,you go down!!!I speak from experiance.:eek: It is a HORRIBLE sensation,if you have ever grabbed an electric fence,this is it a thousand times over. You are really incapable of doing anything. Shotgun bean bag roundVs shotgun would be a good bet.

One point that should be added to the firearms disqualification is drink driving.
It is common in the EU.If you are caught DUI,for the time you are off the road your guns are taken as well.If you cant be trusted with a car and booze,can you be trusted with a gun and booze???
Trouble is with the Doctors saying you are unfit to hold a gun or drive,is you go off get a second opinion which says you are OK.What then?You could sue the first doc for error in professional judgement.Not many doctors will want to run that risk either.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Trouble is with the Doctors saying you are unfit to hold a gun or drive,is you go off get a second opinion which says you are OK.What then?You could sue the first doc for error in professional judgement.Not many doctors will want to run that risk either.

Probably why the medical associations told Barr that they wouldn't support the idea of a mandatory medical certificate saying someone was suitable to hold a firearms certificate.

civdef

And frankly, if he was shot from behind, he didn't see the gardai that pulled the trigger, so whether it was a pistol or a tazer wouldn't have mattered enormously from the point of view of risk to the gardai. Especially as there were several there armed with pistols and uzis.

Not putting it too bluntly I hope, but that's total crap, and the sort of hurler on-the-ditch, ill-informed, half-baked nonsense that drives us mad when people pronounce on our sports, but yet you feel qualified to dish it out on police officers?

Go do some research, find out which agencies advocate tazer vs firearms, and post your results in a thread somewhere that police tactics are relevant rather than on a sport shooting forum.

Sparks

Civ,
p 509 of the Barr report:

However, in an Abbeylara type situation, use of a Tazer gun, if available to the ERU officers who were close to John Carthy when he vacated his house, would seem to have given them good prospects of success in disabling and apprehending him without resort to a lethal option.

It says much the same about other less-than-lethal options.

You're right though, this isn't the right forum for this.

FLAG

During the enquiry, the NARGC sought and obtained legal representation at the enquiry.

They formally requested that they also represent the views of the SSAI and this was given to them in writing.

The views expressed by the NARGC were fully supported by the SSAI.

In addition the SSAI made direct representations to the Barr Tribunal on the matter at the time that submissions were requested on the matter, our submissions were acknowledged and are on record.

For the record!

Traumadoc

when I worked in Australia, we were obliged to inform the firearms branch of any mental health patient who made threats to use firearms to hurt themselves or others. The police then followed this up.

triskell

On the Jerry ryan show this morning he interviewed a journalist who talked about the report. she gave the chain of events leading up to the final incident wher john was shot. if that had been a member of the PDF who had shot him while on duty in aid to civil power he would have been charged with murder. why were the the rules of engagement not followed.

civdef

dfaf, you need to pose that question in similar threads in other sections - this forum isn't the appropriate place.

triskell

i just checked back on previous posts on this thread, i see what you mean. apologies

baikal

as a shooter my self i cannot see why there should be so much blame on the guards. he was shooting without due care and attention and failled to follow instructions from the guards. a gun is not a toy and with it comes responsibity. it is too late when an innicent passer by is shot.

fishfoodie

I have to reply to this thread, even if if I'm still only a wanta-be shooter.

From everything I've heard on this topic; it seems like the Garda scene commander & those in charge made a pigs ear of the whole seige; right up to the point where John McCarthy walked out of the house with a shotgun in his hands, after that the behaved perfectly reasonably.

As unexperienced as I am, I still laughed at the 'experts' suggesting 'shooting the gun out of his hands' or using a Tazzer on him.

If any of those experts is prepared to stand in front of me, while I point a loaded & cocked shotgun at their head, & try to zap me with a Tazzer, maybe then I'll take the opinions as serious proposals. Up until then you know what the say about 'opinions'...

I do wonder what was said in the report as to the readiness of the ERU. Wasnt is reported at the time that they had all failed a recent certification excercise ?

civdef

I don't suppose repeating myself will make any difference?

Sparks

Seems all of us are drifting away from the firearms legislation part of this in here, me included. Fishfoodie, can you post that over in the AfterHours thread or in the Politics thread ? You've got one or two facts incorrect in there but I don't want to keep going offtopic.

Rovi

Just spotted over in the Politics forum-
Barr Tribunal Report now online

Here's a direct link to the host page- http://www.eire.com/2006/07/25/barr-tribunal-on-line/

The actual file (linked from the above page) is a 28Mb PDF. :eek: