Another ridiculous decision from the judiciary

source

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-s-conviction-for-drink-driving-overturned-because-of-handcuffing-30021149.html

Ridiculous, I'm speechless.

ratracer

Words fail me here!!! The judiciary really are a bunch of clowns. Does this mean that anyone that has been handcuffed can take a case to overturn their sentence?
' ah no judge, I was no trouble at all when I was arrested, the big bad lad just shoved the bracelets on me.'

kub

Bloody idiots, just goes to prove these clowns do not live in the real world. Obviously the accused had plenty of money, being able to go all the way to the Supreme court.

I suppose though while this arrest took place these higher beings were sipping G&T's in their various Gentlemen's clubs, with drivers waiting to bring them home to those Utopian suburbs.

I really hope none of those Judges relatives ever get injured or worse as a result of one of these drink drivers.

I'm still angry and I read it four hours ago.

3fullback

It think the ruling came about more because of the sergants point of view that it was 'his own' policy to cuff all drink drivers. Rather, if the sergant had said he did so in this individual's case as for his own safety while transporting the prisoner in accordance with AGS policy.

In all fairness Gardai can't just create their own policy, this ruling doesn't mean Gardai are now unable to cuff DD instead it affirms no longer can they do so and justify it as being their 'own personal' policy.

TheNog

Had to read that article four times. Unbelievable judgement with no insight into the realities that drunk people can turn in a second.

Wonder how the job is going to respond to this.

jobeenfitz

Lots of people who commit crimes and get caught go free in this country. I have no statistics whatsoever but I read the papers. I can understand people being angry at this but I cant understand people being surprised. It is not out of the ordinary for something like this to happen in Ireland.

vicwatson

Robo Sergeant

donvito99

That the methods employed by Gardaí falls under the ambit of the Supreme Court is ridiculous.

If a Garda here could clarify, he was in the custody of the members at the time, what criteria has to be met for handcuffs to be placed on someone in custody, if ANY? It is surely a subjective decision at the discretion of the arresting Garda?

I find this to be an awful decision of the Supreme Court that is against a public policy at present that has been hugely successful at purging the scourge of drink drivers - this chap was CONVICTED remember, his conviction was QUASHED because placing handcuffs on an intoxicated and arrested person in order to cart them off to a station infringed on his individual liberty, apparently.

Get real. A court that has drowned itself in semantics in recent years as opposed to reality. I expect the GRA to throw (rightly) a hissy fit. NO DOUBT should be cast when it comes to the safety of Gardaí. It's yet another insult in what has been a long, long line of snide treatment by way of equipment, man power and statutory procedure.

kupus

Is there some kind of problem between the judges of ireland, the government, and the guards.

It looks like the judges are really going out of their way to humiliate the government and the guards.

I remember reading about a court case a few months ago in galway or mayo, about a women who was so drunk she had to be carried/helped into the station.
Fair enough, shes arrested so job done....

She gets her day in court, but when the paperwork was filled out by the guard he put in the wrong date of when she was caught.... something like a 12 instead of a 13.
So the judge in charge decides to throw out the case completely.
A women who was so paralytic with drink and needed to be carried into the station gets off free.

Now what happens if that women goes out drink diving again and this time hits somebody and kills them. Is it a fault of the judge and can they be held liable? Its common sense, a clerical error was made. Plenty of witnesses saw this women drunk getting carried into a station and yet shes free to go. When she should be off the road.

Also how does this guy get 7 years http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/drunk-driver-sorry-for-crash-that-killed-woman-and-paralysed-pal-30018121.html and another guy who drove down the motorway drunk as an ass and kills a person in an oncoming car gets off (if i remember correctly) He was leaving a function at some hotel and crashed somewhere in meath or outskirts of dubln, it happened about 2/3 years ago if it jogs somebodies memory.

okey found link...http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/no-memory-of-collision-says-drunk-driver-who-killed-man-29394259.html

When you drive drunk, and are breathalyzed at the side of the road, and your reading puts you over the limit, are you not then officially able to be declared under arrest by the Garda (obviously he/she can use discretion and let you off, but assuming they're going to fire ahead and use common sense).

Once you're under arrest, you have to surrender to AGS, so what difference would it make (to your rights) whether or not you are cuffed?


I can understand if you were cuffed extremely tightly to the extent that injury could occur, or if you were bullied or harrassed, etc. but the act of just cuffing a person surely doesn't violate any rights that wouldn't have been 'violated' by the arrest itself?

CB19Kevo

What a complete joke,What is not clear that the Garda cuffed the person for his own protection,technicalities like this undermine the whole system.
Lesson to be learned though. Cuff away but justify at all times under the potential for aggression and possible effect of substances.

McCrack

That journalist report is not correct and an example of journalist pandering to the masses to illicit the usual public opinion rubbish such as pretty much every poster has displayed here.

For anybody that's actually interested the judgment is here:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/964ff98054a8983e80257c83005d297d?OpenDocument

The Supreme Court DID NOT decide the arrest was unlawful. They actually said the arrest was lawful and continued to be lawful. They DID NOT decide the consequent test result was inadmissible. They left that as a matter to be decided separately where necessary and having regard to other jurisprudence.

See conclusions of the judgment if you're not bothered reading the whole thing.

irishgti

source wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-s-conviction-for-drink-driving-overturned-because-of-handcuffing-30021149.html

Ridiculous, I'm speechless.

From the guys and girls down under
Just spotted this its from YouTube
All is going well until the guy turns violent, if he had been handcuffed none of this would have happened
Cuffs are a must full stop.

source

McCrack wrote: »

That journalist report is not correct and an example of journalist pandering to the masses to illicit the usual public opinion rubbish such as pretty much every poster has displayed here.

For anybody that's actually interested the judgment is here:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/964ff98054a8983e80257c83005d297d?OpenDocument

The Supreme Court DID NOT decide the arrest was unlawful. They actually said the arrest was lawful and continued to be lawful. They DID NOT decide the consequent test result was inadmissible. They left that as a matter to be decided separately where necessary and having regard to other jurisprudence.

See conclusions of the judgment if you're not bothered reading the whole thing.

This:
5.2 So far as the first question is concerned, I would hold that the trial judge was entitled to form the view that the placing of handcuffs on Mr. Cullen was unjustified on the grounds that the relevant sergeant did not believe (and had no basis for believing) that Mr. Cullen was likely to resist arrest or escape unless so constrained.

Is what everyone is annoyed about, when I was in the college I was thought to cuff every prisoner as you cannot know what they are thinking or planning on doing.

This judgement goes against the safety of members by putting them at unnecessary risk, as this judgement will be taken to mean that unless a prisoner is actively resisting arrest they cannot be legally handcuffed. That is what the quoted text from the judgement says.

McCrack

Unjustified does not equal unlawful and that's the whole point.

What the Independent journalist have said and what other posters claim here after reading it is not in fact what the Supreme Court said.

Shadow Walker

After wading through the legal double talk , as far as I can see the court states that the handcuffing of the suspect was UNJUSTIFIED and not UNLAWFUL therefore it appears to me that the conviction should stand. At the very least it should be clarified and challenged if necessary (or possible)

As part of their In Service training judges should be put in the back of a patrol car at least one weekend night a year or a weekend night in a city station custody suite, then we would get a lot less judgements like this one.

source

The judgement states that unless a member can justify the use of handcuffs ie a prisoner is resisting, the use of them becomes unlawful.

Gardai cannot know what is going on in the head of a person they are arresting, I have seen perfectly calm people go bezerk when in the back seat of a patrol car. This judgement means that unless a prisoner is actively resisting arrest, it will be unlawful for members to use handcuffs to restrain prisoners.

It is much easier to cuff a compliant person and prevent them from going off the rails in the car, than it is to restrain and cuff a person resisting in a confined space. This judgement has done nothing but put members safety at risk.

Santa Cruz

Someone told me that a Garda could handcuff anyone except COWS
i.e
Children
Old people
Women
Soldiers in Uniform.

3fullback

I can understand the the COW but why not soldiers in uniform ?

Kevin3

COWS was replaced around 2012. For good reason too, now if it can be justified you can apply handcuffs to anyone. Some of the most violent prisoners I have had have been women and 'children'.

Potential-Monke

3fullback wrote: »

I can understand the the COW but why not soldiers in uniform ?

Mark of respect for the position. Keeping in mind, arresting someone does not equate guilt, and as such members in uniform (soldiers & Gardaí) are given that respect. Well, that's my understanding of it anyway. It would be extremely rare to be arresting a soldier/Garda in uniform anyway.

As for the article, going by the Judges conclusion, it was unjustified but not unlawful, how does that then effect the ruling? It was legal, so i fail to see how handcuffing someone would then preclude any evidence thereafter? Granted, if in the opinion of the Judges (well, 2 out of the 3 - one of them has common sense) it was unjustifiable, procedures should be looked at (and, in my opinion, all arrested persons should be handcuffed to avoid any of this crap), but it should not have cause to overturn a successful, and legal, prosecution.

I will be highly disappointed if the powers that be in AGS do not challenge this.

zapata

Fails sobriety test and gets cuffed - simples.

Liamos Dubs

3fullback wrote: »

It think the ruling came about more because of the sergants point of view that it was 'his own' policy to cuff all drink drivers. Rather, if the sergant had said he did so in this individual's case as for his own safety while transporting the prisoner in accordance with AGS policy.

In all fairness Gardai can't just create their own policy, this ruling doesn't mean Gardai are now unable to cuff DD instead it affirms no longer can they do so and justify it as being their 'own personal' policy.

100% agree the arresting member failed to give any justification for handcuffing a prisoner, which is on the lowest end of the scale use of force.

Remove handcuffing and replace with pepper spraying or use of baton(asp)."I have personal policy of pepper spraying all prisoners". "I have a personal policy of batoning all prisoners". Its a mad statement to make. He could have grounded his use of force on any number of reasons the prisoner was intoxicated, emotional/volitile, violent, for his own Safety and the safety of those transporting him. No where in the judgemeent does it say you cant handcuff someone, the judgement is about the unjustified use of force and were the subsequent detention(and tests) then lawful.

The guidelines for use of handcuffs are that guidelines. Every arrest is based on its on merits as is the decision to use force being proportionate and necessary.

Many prisoners that I have arrested i've never felt the need to handcuff them. Other members have often contacted suspects to be arrested and charged by appointment there is no blanket policy on cuffing them.

As for the guidelines i've had to handcuff females when arresting them before, one attempted to attack another female with a blood filled syringe. I had no problem justifying restraining, cuffing and giving evidence that she was one of the most violent prisoners I've ever had to deal with.

The press and our own members do not cover themselves in glory when over re acting to a decision like this without knowing the full facts.

Potential-Monke

The judgement also states that the use of handcuffs was unjustified as the arresting member has to be satisified that that arrested person will either flee or resist. That's a very specific judgement to make. And, in my opinion, means that a Garda that wants to handcuff arrested persons from now on has to be satisified that that person is either going to flee or resist. That puts members in a very tough situation, as anyone who is a member will attest that the nicest person in the world can turn in an instant, and without them being handcuffed it can lead to an extremely dangerous situation for everyone. That's my issue with it.

There needs to be a complete change in the policy in relation to handcuffing prisoners. It needs to be everyone or no-one. Make it part of procedure that you handcuff all arrested persons, regardless of situation or attitude. I can't see why that would be a problem. It's a health and safety issue, and one that management have yet to comment on, or indeed direct on. They're leaving it up to members to decide so that when the inevitable happens, they can wash their hands.

The job is getting harder to carry out, and cases like this one, and the pepper spray one, are making it even more so, with no back-up from management or the state. The Garda is now having to make decisions which s/he should not have to, as it's Force issues, not individual issues. This country is soon going to get the police force they want, and woe is that time.