Gardai Mess ups..

FreudianSlippers

I'm not a Garda and I don't have an opportunity to work with Gardaí often as I do little to no criminal matters, but every single one I have ever met has been professional, courteous and genuinely interested in doing their job to the best of their ability.

It's easy to bitch and moan when you're on the sidelines and not in the match. They have to deal with absolute idiots sometimes (drunk and sober) and you'd have a bit of a jaded view of society if you did too.

They're working with the law they have and the equipment available to them.

Do I worry about morning checkpoints after a night of drinking before? Certainly! I don't even drive if I feel that I'm still a bit buzzed from the night before but it's always in the back of my mind.
I agree it's a bit ridiculous that people are being done for drink driving from the night before, but there are still people out there drinking until 9 or 10 in the morning and they need to be caught too.

Rhamiel

Bosco boy wrote: »

don't worry you'll be safe to go to school in the morning, it's a Tuesday morning!!

Still ignoring my question Bosco Boy?
U seem to have plenty of time to write smart as$ comments with that quick Garda wit of yours...:rolleyes:

Rhamiel

geespot wrote: »

maybe some of the gardai on here might explain why they set up checkpoints in the morning to catch people who where drinking the night before as opposed to catching them when they are actuallydrink driving at night maybe its because somebody who is hungover might put up less resistance than somebody whos drunk maybe somebody whos hungover maybe more likely to stop and not have to be chased maybe its easier to fill the books with people who or just trying to get to work

It would appear that bout 70% of Garda Resources is pushed toward the traffic corps.. A little worrying for the other areas of crime ... especially seeing as members of traffic corps arent actually real gardai

Bosco boy

Rhamiel wrote: »

It would appear that bout 70% of Garda Resources is pushed toward the traffic corps.. A little worrying for the other areas of crime ... especially seeing as members of traffic corps arent actually real gardai

With all due respect that's either a troll or we have been debating on a thread created by someone who has zero idea of what they are talking about, I think it's time to close this down, it's getting silly!

FreudianSlippers

This is the final warning. Either make genuine contributions to the discussion occurring in this thread or discontinue posting. Personal abuse, snarky comments, generalisations about entire professions and other trolling behaviour will not be tolerated.

geespot

sure you would have some sympathy for the gardai if they didnt ultimately pick on the easy targets. it must be disheartening to take a guilty person to court for some smarmy lawyer to get them off. to which they have to be the lowest life form of all. when you consider there job is to keep thugs out of jail, drivers on the road who shouldnt be anywhere near one, and the big money maker to make grossly exagerated or completely fabricated claims which just serves to leave the normal joe soap and buisness with higher insurance costs

MagicSean

Rhamiel wrote: »

It would appear that bout 70% of Garda Resources is pushed toward the traffic corps.. A little worrying for the other areas of crime ... especially seeing as members of traffic corps arent actually real gardai

Where do you start to correct this kind of post? Everything is wrong in it.

geespot wrote: »

sure you would have some sympathy for the gardai if they didnt ultimately pick on the easy targets. it must be disheartening to take a guilty person to court for some smarmy lawyer to get them off. to which they have to be the lowest life form of all. when you consider there job is to keep thugs out of jail, drivers on the road who shouldnt be anywhere near one, and the big money maker to make grossly exagerated or completely fabricated claims which just serves to leave the normal joe soap and buisness with higher insurance costs

I've seen more people injured and killed by cars than by violent crime. Bad drivers aren't all scumbags with records.

geespot

k_mac wrote: »

Where do you start to correct this kind of post? Everything is wrong in it.



I've seen more people injured and killed by cars than by violent crime. Bad drivers aren't all scumbags with records.

who said they were. everybody knows that a greater police presence would bring down road fatalities. but due to limited resources surely it would be wiser to target high risk areas and the times when these accidents or most likely you never can stop all accidents so the best practise would be to try and reduce the most serious and preventable ones drink driving at night particularily the weekends

dottsie

Hi guys, seen as there are some garda in this discussion I'd like to ask them a question. Nearly a year ago there was a house party in my home and the gardaí were called for a noise complaint, fair enough, but what bothers me is they entered the house without a warrant or invitation. The door was left open by a friend of mine does that give them right to enter? Also they took an item for evidence can they do that? Any help would be appreciated.

s2c

The Guards can enter a private dwelling to prevent a breach of the peace. Once legally on the premises they can seize evidence relating to the commission of an arrestable offence ( one with penalty of 5 years + imprisonment) or under Section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 they can retain evidence in relation to any offence found during the course of a SEARCH. A breach of the peace is not set out in statute - it is a common law offence.

McCrack

s2c wrote: »

The Guards can enter a private dwelling to prevent a breach of the peace. Once legally on the premises they can seize evidence relating to the commission of an arrestable offence ( one with penalty of 5 years + imprisonment) or under Section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 they can retain evidence in relation to any offence found during the course of a SEARCH. A breach of the peace is not set out in statute - it is a common law offence.

We have gone completely off topic here but this is wrong. Breach of the peace is a common law offence. Breach of the peace in this country comes under the Public Order Act and if you read it you will notice it says PUBLIC PLACE. A private dwelling is not a public place for the purposes of the Public Order Act so no a Garda cannot enter a house uninvited or without a warrant (generally) and most certainly cannot enter without invitation or warrant if a breach of the peace is occuring (loud music, threatening behaviour etc)

s2c

McCrack wrote: »

We have gone completely off topic here but this is wrong. Breach of the peace is a common law offence. Breach of the peace in this country comes under the Public Order Act and if you read it you will notice it says PUBLIC PLACE. A private dwelling is not a public place for the purposes of the Public Order Act so no a Garda cannot enter a house uninvited or without a warrant (generally) and most certainly cannot enter without invitation or warrant if a breach of the peace is occuring (loud music, threatening behaviour etc)

I beg to differ, a breach of the peace is not defined - it is generally some activity that disturbs the peace or puts people in fear. Thorpe v DPP ( High Court 2007 ) specifically stated that breach of the peace is known to law and was not repealed by the Criminal Justice Public Order Act. If a breach of the peace is about to be committed in a private dwelling the Guards can enter and arrest. .... but only for a breach of the peace ... not for any other offence

Bosco boy

Maybe the person who left the door open invited them in and then left, I've seen it happen! Once your inside and there's something illegal you can seize it, criminal law act 1976 if i'm correct.

dottsie

We asked the guy who left the door open and he said he didn't invite them in they just walked in.

cursai

Common Law breach of the peace allows a Garda to enter a private dwelling when he/she is of the opinion that a breach of the peace may occur or a person or group of people are reckless as to whether or not it would occur! Simply put.

House party is not usually a breach of the peace, but it may have been a messy one!

Turner

dottsie wrote: »

Hi guys, seen as there are some garda in this discussion I'd like to ask them a question. Nearly a year ago there was a house party in my home and the gardaí were called for a noise complaint, fair enough, but what bothers me is they entered the house without a warrant or invitation. The door was left open by a friend of mine does that give them right to enter? Also they took an item for evidence can they do that? Any help would be appreciated.

What did they take as evidence?

If you feel they trespassed or burgled your house contact the Garda Ombudsman and make a complaint.

dottsie

A bag that well what we believed had legal smoke and tobacco but obviously not. Now they're claiming manufacturing. Pretty screwed...

Bosco boy

Was it a 25kg bag!

dottsie

no definately smaller than that it was like a 25 gram bag of mostly tobacco i dont even know why it was in a bag i only saw it when they took it. there's two charges manufacturing and something like allowing it to happen on our property. i dont think the whole situation was very fair

Reloc8

Dottsie go to a solicitor for gods sake - they will advise you on your situation. Your housemates also need legal advice.

Alternatively you can proceed on the basis of the rantings of people you've never met who are entirely unaccountable and half of whom use a forum in order to vent behaviour which would result in them being involuntarily sectioned under the mental health acts.

Up to yourself.

angelfire9

Reloc8 wrote: »

Dottsie go to a solicitor for gods sake - they will advise you on your situation. Your housemates also need legal advice.

Alternatively you can proceed on the basis of the rantings of people you've never met who are entirely unaccountable and half of whom use a forum in order to vent behaviour which would result in them being involuntarily sectioned under the mental health acts.

Up to yourself.

+1

Brilliantly phrased Reloc8
Nice to get a laugh first thing in the morning

MagicSean

geespot wrote: »

who said they were. everybody knows that a greater police presence would bring down road fatalities. but due to limited resources surely it would be wiser to target high risk areas and the times when these accidents or most likely you never can stop all accidents so the best practise would be to try and reduce the most serious and preventable ones drink driving at night particularily the weekends

There is no high risk areas in drink driving. People from every walk of life does it. Most MAT checkpoints are carried out at night but that doesn't mean the rest of the day should be excluded. As I have already mentioned, the most drunk person I ever arrested was after he crashed into someone on a main road in the afternoon.

McCrack wrote: »

We have gone completely off topic here but this is wrong. Breach of the peace is a common law offence. Breach of the peace in this country comes under the Public Order Act and if you read it you will notice it says PUBLIC PLACE. A private dwelling is not a public place for the purposes of the Public Order Act so no a Garda cannot enter a house uninvited or without a warrant (generally) and most certainly cannot enter without invitation or warrant if a breach of the peace is occuring (loud music, threatening behaviour etc)

Breach of the peace is not limited to a public place.

dottsie wrote: »

We asked the guy who left the door open and he said he didn't invite them in they just walked in.

When people do stupid things they often lie. Just a random observation from my life experience.

dottsie wrote: »

no definately smaller than that it was like a 25 gram bag of mostly tobacco i dont even know why it was in a bag i only saw it when they took it. there's two charges manufacturing and something like allowing it to happen on our property. i dont think the whole situation was very fair

Who was charged?

McCrack

cursai wrote: »

Common Law breach of the peace allows a Garda to enter a private dwelling when he/she is of the opinion that a breach of the peace may occur or a person or group of people are reckless as to whether or not it would occur! DPP makes recommendatins on this common law type. Simply put.

House party is not usually a breach of the peace, but it may have been a messy one!

I can't see how this is correct. Threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour are breaches of the peace, so is creating a nuisance. If these are committed in a private dwelling I cannot for the life of me accept that a Garda can enter a dwelling without the occupiers consent and use force to gain entry if required under the common law or otherwise.

FreudianSlippers

geespot banned, don't seek or give advice and dottsie... for the love of FSM take Reloc8's advice!

Reloc8

McCrack wrote: »

I can't see how this is correct. Threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour are breaches of the peace, so is creating a nuisance. If these are committed in a private dwelling I cannot for the life of me accept that a Garda can enter a dwelling without the occupiers consent and use force to gain entry if required under the common law or otherwise.

The offence of breach of the peace at common law still exists aside and apart from the statutory breach of the peace and can be committed outside of a public place i.e. in a private dwelling. There's a decision of Murphy J on point whose name and full details escape me presently.

johnnyskeleton

Reloc8 wrote: »

The offence of breach of the peace at common law still exists aside and apart from the statutory breach of the peace and can be committed outside of a public place i.e. in a private dwelling. There's a decision of Murphy J on point whose name and full details escape me presently.

Thorpe.

boAds_user

Here's one example..

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=147703

Bosco boy

boAds_user wrote: »

Here's one example..

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=147703

Ya, that's right up there with the Guildford four and the birmingham 6, I bet the recollection of events is 100%. Pathetic effort to keep this thread going!

MagicSean

boAds_user wrote: »

Here's one example..

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=147703

What a ridiculous story. doesn't take much to read between the lines on that one.

boAds_user

Bosco boy wrote: »

Ya, that's right up there with the Guildford four and the birmingham 6, I bet the recollection of events is 100%. Pathetic effort to keep this thread going!

I understand that you are saying it is only a minor thing and that you feel that it is only being used to have a go at the Garda by keeping the posts going.

I think that it is wrong and don't support those people who have an agenda to bash or discredit anyone for any reason.

is that not what they said at the time about the Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6?
I agree withit's not a big event, but is there not a fair point there?

There is no reason to discredit the events, the poster has responded a number of times to clarify doubts raised.

What is your opinion?

FreudianSlippers

boAds_user has informed me that his posts were, in fact, genuinely attempting to contribute to the conversation.

I'll reopen for now to allow a chance to respond, but I don't really like where this thread has gone despite multiple warnings.

MagicSean

boAds_user wrote: »

I understand that you are saying it is only a minor thing and that you feel that it is only being used to have a go at the Garda by keeping the posts going.

I think that it is wrong and don't support those people who have an agenda to bash or discredit anyone for any reason.

is that not what they said at the time about the Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6?
I agree withit's not a big event, but is there not a fair point there?

There is no reason to discredit the events, the poster has responded a number of times to clarify doubts raised.

What is your opinion?

I would say his story is one-sided, ill-informed, badly remembered yet still he manages to show himself in a bad light along with the Gardaí. My favourite part was him demanding medical assistance for the purpose of testing his blood for alcohol.

pirelli

k_mac wrote: »

I would say his story is one-sided, ill-informed, badly remembered yet still he manages to show himself in a bad light along with the Gardaí. My favourite part was him demanding medical assistance for the purpose of testing his blood for alcohol.

Your missing an important point k-Mac; He did not seem to be aware what he was arrested for! I would suggest he reports it to the Garda Ombusdman.

I am not judging or taking sides but if protocol was not followed than it might be a just service should the man report the matter to the Garda Ombudsman.

Also from the post above, and because we do not know what happened that night to this man, then i won't comment on it, but if there was a failure to follow protocol then it could lead to a miscarriage of justice.

rusty_racer94

I got a parking ticket with the wrong reg. on it.

Turner

geespot wrote: »

oh and before you ban me again fcuk you osint

You probably wont understand this but a lot of the outcomes of when people interact with the police depends on their upbringing, the social class they belong to and how they behave in public.

Alot of people dont have common sense.

If police in a shift go from call to call for 20 calls in a row you can see how their patience can be somewhat short with people who are drunk and obstreperous.

Bosco boy

boAds_user wrote: »

I understand that you are saying it is only a minor thing and that you feel that it is only being used to have a go at the Garda by keeping the posts going.

I think that it is wrong and don't support those people who have an agenda to bash or discredit anyone for any reason.

is that not what they said at the time about the Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6?
I agree withit's not a big event, but is there not a fair point there?

There is no reason to discredit the events, the poster has responded a number of times to clarify doubts raised.

What is your opinion?

I'm sure you have spoken to intoxicated people who won't listen to reason, many people are so out of their mind on cocktails of drugs and drink when in custody that they cannot recall what happened 5 minutes earlier, there is a standard procedure in dealing with people in custody, they would have been told exactly why they were arrested if they were in a position to remember it, they can contest everthing in court and will be entitled to copies of statements and custody record, I can't wait for the day that all custody areas are covered by CCTV and it's something that should have been done long ago.

MagicSean

geespot wrote: »

presuming that all the people on here can read. i would advise you to pick up your local paper and count how many people or arrested each week for being drunk and disorderly. the gaurds favourite quote is i asked them to move on and they refused (reminiscent of a school boy bully) talk about a red rag to a bull. the end result of most of these is facts proven case dismissed. well given the cost of bringing this action and police and court time wasted i would say this is a most valuable waste of the taxpayers.

You call it their favourite quote, I call it an evidential requirement for a section 8 charge.

source

geespot wrote: »

presuming that all the people on here can read. i would advise you to pick up your local paper and count how many people or arrested each week for being drunk and disorderly. the gaurds favourite quote is i asked them to move on and they refused (reminiscent of a school boy bully) talk about a red rag to a bull. the end result of most of these is facts proven case dismissed. well given the cost of bringing this action and police and court time wasted i would say this is a most valuable waste of the taxpayers.

As k_mac said above, Section 8 of the public order act provides for gardai to move people on from an area where they are in breach of the public order act.

In moving people on or telling them to move on, Gardai are actually giving the person a chance to not be arrested, but most people in my experience don't listen because they are full of drink and think that nothing can happen to them.

Also the majority of cases like this that i've had the accused has gotten a fine, and the cases have not been dismissed.

McCrack

Reloc8 wrote: »

The offence of breach of the peace at common law still exists aside and apart from the statutory breach of the peace and can be committed outside of a public place i.e. in a private dwelling. There's a decision of Murphy J on point whose name and full details escape me presently.

The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 breaches of the peace are limited to public places, not dwellings.

If anybody can link that Thorpe judgment I'd be interested in reading it.

HarryPotter41

McCrack wrote: »

The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 breaches of the peace are limited to public places, not dwellings.

If anybody can link that Thorpe judgment I'd be interested in reading it.

If a garda witnesses a breach of the peace in a private dwelling they have been invited into they can arrest that person for a breach of the peace.

johnnyskeleton

McCrack wrote: »

The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 breaches of the peace are limited to public places, not dwellings.

It creates new offences of intoxication in a public place, offensive/disorderly conduct, and threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour. None of these replace breach of the peace contrary to common law (apparently)

If anybody can link that Thorpe judgment I'd be interested in reading it.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/40ea083a9ebd7676802572430061cf6d?OpenDocument

It's also reported in the 2007 Irish reports if you have em.

mcgarrett

Interesting thread, but long before the 1994 act came in the charge of "breach of the peace contary to common law" was a regular in the District court.

The definition I learned as a Garda in training many years ago was

[SIZE=+1]Any injurious force or violence moved against the person of another, his goods, lands or other possessions, whether it be by threatning words, or by furious gesture, or force of the body, or any other force used in terrorem.[/SIZE]

johnnyskeleton

mcgarrett wrote: »

Interesting thread, but long before the 1994 act came in the charge of "breach of the peace contary to common law" was a regular in the District court.

The definition I learned as a Garda in training many years ago was

[SIZE=+1]Any injurious force or violence moved against the person of another, his goods, lands or other possessions, whether it be by threatning words, or by furious gesture, or force of the body, or any other force used in terrorem.[/SIZE]

Why is it triable summarily in the District Court? Thorpe says it is indictable but can be tried summarily. Where does that jurisdiction come from?

mcgarrett

Before the 94 public order act anybody who was sober and engaged in threatening, insulting or abusive behaviour was charged with "conduct calculated to lead to a breach of the peace contrary to common law"

All other charges to deal with such behaviour usually had a link to alcohol.

i.e Drunk and disorderly
Drunk and a source of danger to traffic
Drunk in a public place.

If you were verbally abusive and threatening but didn't actually physically assault someone and had no drink on board, there was nothing in statute law to deal with you prior to '94.

So, "conduct calculated" usually got you bound to the peace in the district court.

johnnyskeleton

mcgarrett wrote: »

Before the 94 public order act anybody who was sober and engaged in threatening, insulting or abusive behaviour was charged with "conduct calculated to lead to a breach of the peace contrary to common law"

All other charges to deal with such behaviour usually had a link to alcohol.

i.e Drunk and disorderly
Drunk and a source of danger to traffic
Drunk in a public place.

If you were verbally abusive and threatening but didn't actually physically assault someone and had no drink on board, there was nothing in statute law to deal with you prior to '94.

So, "conduct calculated" usually got you bound to the peace in the district court.

But why is it triable in the District Court? Summary offences are creatures of statute, so there would need to be a statute empowering district judges or the old justices of the peace to try a common law offence.

Bosco boy

Minor offence = district court

Tom Young

That wasn't the question JS is asking. I was thinking along the lines of the common informer and Indictable Offences Act 1849.

I also was looking at the Garda Acts 1924 and 2005. Seems to be some basis for the Gardai to prosecute common law offences. Though this does not deal with the issue raised by JS entirely.

Is there an answer?

johnnyskeleton

Bosco boy wrote: »

Minor offence = district court

A district court can only deal with minor offences, but that doesn't mean that all minor offences can be tried summarily.

District court = minor offence
Minor offence /= District Court

Bosco boy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A district court can only deal with minor offences, but that doesn't mean that all minor offences can be tried summarily.

District court = minor offence
Minor offence /= District Court

Any examples of minor offences dealt with in the higher courts? I have seen judges not accepting jurisdiction in the district court due to the seriousness of the offence even when the dpp has directed that it should be dealt with in the district court, I'm curious how a stand alone breach of the peace could make it to the circuit court.

johnnyskeleton

Bosco boy wrote: »

Any examples of minor offences dealt with in the higher courts? I have seen judges not accepting jurisdiction in the district court due to the seriousness of the offence even when the dpp has directed that it should be dealt with in the district court, I'm curious how a stand alone breach of the peace could make it to the circuit court.

In A.G. v. Cunninghman (approved by Murphy in Thorpe), it was held that breach of the peace was an indictable offence contrary to common law.

As it is indictable, it must be tried by a jury unless there is specific statutory provision for summary trial.