Proper Investigation

da_shee

Hello all,

Not sure if this is the right place for this question but let me give a hypothetical....

Betty and Mark have a child. After years together, they can stand each other no more and separate. Betty and Mark both take out protection orders against each other. One night Betty invites Mark to meet her. Mark obliges but is instantly told by Betty that she cannot speak to him now.

At 9.00pm that evening Betty reports Mark to the local law enforcement claiming he has breached the order. Mark is arrested at 10.30pm. He is held over night and charged the next morning and bailed.

Mark asks the local Sergent on what grounds was he arrested to which he is told "once the complaint is made we have to act when there's a protection order in place". In other words Mark has been lead to believe that Betty simply saying that he breached the order was enough for him to be arrested.

Is this valid? Is Betty's word enough or does there need to be more investigation done? Because by this logic Mark could turn around and say the same thing!!

I'm not looking for advice but if anyone knows what the proper procedure is here I would appreciate the knowledge.

Thanks

LowKeyReturn

The problem is Mark didn't. Mark would have been wise to engage the services of a solicitor before speaking the the Gardai. Mark, if he has half a brain, should have seen that one coming a mile away.

The correct procedure would be for Mark to get in contact with a solicitor.

da_shee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Mark would have been wise to engage the services of a solicitor before speaking the the Gardai.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying he could not ask why he was arrested?

My original question still stands, is Betty's "say so" a valid reason for the Gardai to make the arrest an hour and a half later?

Pro Hoc Vice

da_shee wrote: »

What do you mean by this? Are you saying he could not ask why he was arrested?

My original question still stands, is Betty's "say so" a valid reason for the Gardai to make the arrest an hour and a half later?

This is one of the oldest tricks in the book, one person gets baring order and then invites the other to meet, when they turn up complaint to AGS. If this ever does happen then the person should seek legal advice before going to meeting and bring a witness.

In relation to your question, of course one persons word is enough to get another person arrested and possibly convicted, what other way could work, in fact in a huge amount of minor and serious cases the only evidence is the victim.

da_shee

infosys wrote: »

This is one of the oldest tricks in the book, one person gets baring order and then invites the other to meet, when they turn up complaint to AGS. If this ever does happen then the person should seek legal advice before going to meeting and bring a witness.

yes, believe me Mark has learned his lesson

infosys wrote: »

In relation to your question, of course one persons word is enough to get another person arrested and possibly convicted, what other way could work, in fact in a huge amount of minor and serious cases the only evidence is the victim.

Thank you for answering my question, this is specifically what I was trying to find out.

schemingbohemia

da_shee wrote: »

yes, believe me Mark has learned his lesson hypothetically



Thank you for answering my question, this is specifically what I was trying to find out.

FYP;)

da_shee

schemingbohemia wrote: »

FYP;)

of course, thank you!