Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

Bepolite · 24-09-2014 10:30pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The injunction was lifted as against 9 people who agreed to enter into an undertaking that is the same as the injunction. So they did not challange it they accepted it, breach of an undertaking is contempt of court it's not just damages its jail time than you very much.

My reading of it is they challenged the injunction and it was lifted on the basis of the undertaking. I realise I'm splitting hairs but the whole thing is a bit strange.

(i) A general injunction was granted not to do X, Y and Z.
(ii) X, Y and Z are things that are illegal anyway and could result in arrest
(iii) The injunction is challenged and 'lifted' on the basis of an undertaking not to do X, Y and Z and that X, Y and Z were illegal anyway
(iv) injunction remains in place against everyone else.

I consider myself a relatively intelligent person but this one has be scratching my head unless it's a strategy to get a class of people to agree to an undertaking in the first place. As a strategy is seems to match equal parts irony with success.

Pro Hoc Vice · 24-09-2014 11:32pm

Bepolite wrote: »

My reading of it is they challenged the injunction and it was lifted on the basis of the undertaking. I realise I'm splitting hairs but the whole thing is a bit strange.

(i) A general injunction was granted not to do X, Y and Z.
(ii) X, Y and Z are things that are illegal anyway and could result in arrest
(iii) The injunction is challenged and 'lifted' on the basis of an undertaking not to do X, Y and Z and that X, Y and Z were illegal anyway
(iv) injunction remains in place against everyone else.

I consider myself a relatively intelligent person but this one has be scratching my head unless it's a strategy to get a class of people to agree to an undertaking in the first place. As a strategy is seems to match equal parts irony with success.

The interim injunction would be usually granted ex-parte or the court may grant leave for short service of the notice. Then the person against whom the injunction turns up in court or goes to solicitor and says what about this. Usually it is agreed to give an undertaking.

So it would be silly to challenge an injunction that you give an undertaking to anyway. Injunctions can seek to stop someone doing a illegal act as it a lot more serious in a lot of cases to breach either injunction or undertaking than to actually commit the crime, in fact for some crimes there may not even be a prison term while breaching the undertaking can mean an order from the High Court to go inside for a bit.

Bepolite · 24-09-2014 11:44pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The interim injunction would be usually granted ex-parte or the court may grant leave for short service of the notice. Then the person against whom the injunction turns up in court or goes to solicitor and says what about this. Usually it is agreed to give an undertaking.

So it would be silly to challenge an injunction that you give an undertaking to anyway. Injunctions can seek to stop someone doing a illegal act as it a lot more serious in a lot of cases to breach either injunction or undertaking than to actually commit the crime, in fact for some crimes there may not even be a prison term while breaching the undertaking can mean an order from the High Court to go inside for a bit.

I do understand where you're coming from, but the article suggests the injunction had been lifted. To be honest I think we're arguing semantics. I do find it a bit unusual that this interim-injunction has been granted against an indefinite class. I am aware that this would likely be an ex-parte, but I always thought that was a temporary measure. Here, from what I can gather, you, me and everyone else is a respondent should we chose to engage in such conduct.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-09-2014 12:00am

Bepolite wrote: »

I do understand where you're coming from, but the article suggests the injunction had been lifted. To be honest I think we're arguing semantics. I do find it a bit unusual that this interim-injunction has been granted against an indefinite class. I am aware that this would likely be an ex-parte, but I always thought that was a temporary measure. Here, from what I can gather, you, me and everyone else is a respondent should we chose to engage in such conduct.

1 never accept a news paper article as fact of anything, I say a news report of a case I ran in the high court it bore no relation to what happened.

But a interim or interlocitory injunction being granted on Friday and then the matter was returnable to today. Today the respondent agree to undertaking so no longer a need for injunction so the court either lifts it or more likely it ran out today as not renewed.

With out knowing the terms of the court order I have no idea if I'm in breach but I assume the order will be posted at site of the company.

According to courts website Friday was ex parte

hullaballoo · 25-09-2014 12:10am

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

1 never accept a news paper article as fact of anything, I say a news report of a case I ran in the high court it bore no relation to what happened.

Never a truer word.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-09-2014 12:31am

hullaballoo wrote: »

Never a truer word.

Why I like the following quote.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you

Victor · 25-09-2014 8:51am

Bepolite wrote: »

My reading of it is they challenged the injunction and it was lifted on the basis of the undertaking. I realise I'm splitting hairs but the whole thing is a bit strange.

(i) A general injunction was granted not to do X, Y and Z.
(ii) X, Y and Z are things that are illegal anyway and could result in arrest
(iii) The injunction is challenged and 'lifted' on the basis of an undertaking not to do X, Y and Z and that X, Y and Z were illegal anyway
(iv) injunction remains in place against everyone else.

I consider myself a relatively intelligent person but this one has be scratching my head unless it's a strategy to get a class of people to agree to an undertaking in the first place. As a strategy is seems to match equal parts irony with success.

Person A: charged with obstructing the public road (road includes footpath) and assault.

Person B: charged with obstructing the public road (road includes footpath) and assault. Person B has given an undertaking not to do so.

Who do you think the court is going to treat more seriously? And deny certain mitigating factors ("It was a spur of the moment thing").

Bepolite · 25-09-2014 11:58am

Victor wrote: »

Person A: charged with obstructing the public road (road includes footpath) and assault.

Person B: charged with obstructing the public road (road includes footpath) and assault. Person B has given an undertaking not to do so.

Who do you think the court is going to treat more seriously? And deny certain mitigating factors ("It was a spur of the moment thing").

I'm well aware of that. I'm surprised no one else finds this injunction interesting in the way it's come about. I'm also well aware the press may have it wrong but if we take it at face value it does seem rather strange to me.

conorh91 · 25-09-2014 12:14pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

1 never accept a news paper article as fact of anything, I say a news report of a case I ran in the high court it bore no relation to what happened.

Depends on the reporter I think.

Sometimes counsel and judges in the Central Criminal Court or CCA have relied on newspaper coverage of related convictions during sentencing.

Interestingly, it's always The Irish Times. I haven't once seen reference to the Indo or, perish the thought, the Evening Herald.

knarkypants · 26-09-2014 12:57pm

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm well aware of that. I'm surprised no one else finds this injunction interesting in the way it's come about. I'm also well aware the press may have it wrong but if we take it at face value it does seem rather strange to me.

I must say I agree with you. I'm by no means well educated in Law but I have never before heard of a "general injunction" placed on all persons who choose to protest against water meters. Would that mean serving everyone who shows up at a protest with the court order?

Pro Hoc Vice · 26-09-2014 1:06pm

knarkypants wrote: »

I must say I agree with you. I'm by no means well educated in Law but I have never before heard of a "general injunction" placed on all persons who choose to protest against water meters. Would that mean serving everyone who shows up at a protest with the court order?

Without reading the order no one can answer.

Hogzy · 26-09-2014 2:22pm

knarkypants wrote: »

I must say I agree with you. I'm by no means well educated in Law but I have never before heard of a "general injunction" placed on all persons who choose to protest against water meters. Would that mean serving everyone who shows up at a protest with the court order?

It would mean anyone who is made aware of the order and breaches it is in contempt of court I would imagine.

Carawaystick · 27-09-2014 12:49am

How do you become aware of an order, if one is not explicitly given to you?

If someone states an order exists and states "X,Y, and Z"
Can you just ring +353 1 888 6000 to find out if they're lying or not?
Or do you just have to accept some random punter stating the court made an order?

Basically what steps can a citizen take to confirm an order was made?
Are they all published online ?

Peregrinus · 27-09-2014 2:04am

The people who get such an order have an interest in making others aware of it.

They can do various things to bring this about - send copies of the order to all the pressure groups, lobby groups, prominent individuals associated with the campaign, etc. Put ads publicising the order in local or national papers. Erect notices at the site of likely protests with copies of the order. Etc.

They can also use the order to stop activities that breach the order, once they start. If you are engaged in the activity concerned, and the guards attend and inform you of the order and the fact that your activities breach it, then you're on notice of the order and will be in contempt if you don't stop.

27-09-2014 9:04am

Carawaystick wrote: »

How do you become aware of an order, if one is not explicitly given to you?

If someone states an order exists and states "X,Y, and Z"
Can you just ring +353 1 888 6000 to find out if they're lying or not?
Or do you just have to accept some random punter stating the court made an order?

Basically what steps can a citizen take to confirm an order was made?
Are they all published online ?

If you're told about a Court order you should obey it. It's not the sort of thing one makes up. However in order for the order to have any legal penalty for you the person with the order must serve you with a copy of it or be able to prove you were aware of it.

Normally to do this they will have a copy of the order, they will write a penal endorsement on the order, and then they will hand you a copy of it (or attempt to at least) but from the moment they do it is your responsibility to desist in whatever action you are taking.

Banjo String · 29-09-2014 8:17pm

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/temporary-court-injunction-granted-against-water-meter-protesters-30601021.html

Temporary injunction granted.

And now removed .

Ogham · 29-09-2014 8:22pm

Banjo String wrote: »

And now removed .

Removed last week because the offenders said they would comply with it.
Now they have admitted they will still protest and are due in court again.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0929/648767-water-meters/

Banjo String · 29-09-2014 8:56pm

Ogham wrote: »

Removed last week because the offenders said they would comply with it.
Now they have admitted they will still protest and are due in court again.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0929/648767-water-meters/

I thought this part was particularly interesting tbh.

Mr Berry said the Water Services Act granted a water service authority the capacity to seek injunctive relief for failure to comply with the act, very clearly limiting the ambit of that law to a water service authority, which the contractor engaged by Bord Gáis was not. It was a private company.

Judge Barrett said he would not impose any injunction on the defendants nor accept any undertaking from them but would put GMC Sierra's motion for attachment and committal to prison of seven of the nine defendants in the court list for hearing before the duty judge on Thursday.

29-09-2014 8:57pm

Everyone has the right to protest. However, what they were doing was criminal towards those workers. Their quibble is against Irish Water, NOT the workers. The intimidation and violence is totally out of order.

Quin_Dub · 29-09-2014 9:02pm

Question regarding Water meter installation.

To begin with , I have no issue with Water charges or the fact that they want to install a meter. My question is purely about the physical act of installation.

I live in a fairly rural area and the stop-cock for my house is on my property , just outside the house about 50m from the public road.

The Stop-cock itself is boxed off under a raised flowerbed surrounded by a low dry stone wall.

My questions are

Will they actually install a meter under these circumstances?
If they do install , what responsibility to they have in terms of restoring the surroundings?
Do they have to restore the flowerbeds or repair the dry-stone wall if it were to be damaged for example?
Can I make any "demands" regarding the work they do prior to them starting to prevent issues?

If they won't/can't install a meter , does this mean I potentially remain permanently on a fixed rate charge?

Thanks in advance.

**MODS - Please feel free to move this thread if you feel this is in the wrong place

Banjo String · 29-09-2014 9:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone has the right to protest. However, what they were doing was criminal towards those workers. Their quibble is against Irish Water, NOT the workers. The intimidation and violence is totally out of order.

what were they doing that was 'criminal'?

From the article, which I assume you read?

Mr Berry said all of the defendants denied they had engaged in unlawful activities and questioned whether what they were doing was unlawful or unconstitutional.

He said they maintained they were entitled to conduct their protest by, for instance, peacefully standing on a water cock on a pavement that workmen had to get access to in order to install a meter.

Assaulting, harassing, intimidating or endangering someone were specific offences which, if committed, could be dealt with by gardaí thereby removing the necessity for an order directing every citizen to obey the law.

Ogham · 29-09-2014 9:06pm

Banjo String wrote: »

I thought this part was particularly interesting tbh.

He was ,, i think , referring to GMC not Irish Water.
As they were acting on behalf of Irish Water - surely the law would cover them.

29-09-2014 9:09pm

Banjo String wrote: »

what were they doing that was 'criminal'?

From the article, which I assume you read?

Looking at videos posted on youtube, they were pulling barriers away from workers with considerable force. Whatever about possibly causing injury to one of the innocent workers, it's amazing they didn't injure themselves!

Ogham · 29-09-2014 9:10pm

Banjo String wrote: »

what were they doing that was 'criminal'?

From the article, which I assume you read?

A quote from a defence barrister doesn't mean it's what happenned. The judge saw videos .

Banjo String · 29-09-2014 9:10pm

Ogham wrote: »

He was ,, i think , referring to GMC not Irish Water.
As they were acting on behalf of Irish Water - surely the law would cover them.

Well I can only go by what their lawyer (Berry) claims.

very clearly limiting the ambit of that law to a water service authority , which the contractor engaged by Bord Gáis was not. It was a private company.

Have they just found that elusive 'loophole' I wonder?

Banjo String · 29-09-2014 9:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Looking at videos posted on youtube, they were pulling barriers away from workers with considerable force . Whatever about possibly causing injury to one of the innocent workers, it's amazing they didn't injure themselves!

Some of These innocent workers, (ones drafted in from the north) have allegedly been indulging in some 'sectarian banter' from reports I've read online.

Add to that, their are also many videos on youtube of protestors doing absolutely nothing on camera, bar refusing to move (as is their right) when they're carted off in handcuffs.

Video evidence works both ways.

29-09-2014 9:23pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Some of These innocent workers, (ones drafted in from the north) have allegedly been indulging in some 'sectarian banter' from reports I've read online.

Add to that, their are also many videos on youtube of protestors doing absolutely nothing on camera, bar refusing to move (as is their right) when they're carted off in handcuffs.

Video evidence works both ways.

It sure does! If you have any links to your claims, publish them.

Banjo String · 29-09-2014 9:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It sure does! If you have any links to your claims, publish them.

Well here's one video of an elected councillor being arrested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMNY55Brhk

Looks like a right rowdy troublemaker altogether.

From your own post

Everyone has the right to protest.

Why was he being denied his right?

29-09-2014 9:48pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Well here's one video of an elected councillor being arrested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMNY55Brhk

Looks like a right rowdy troublemaker altogether.

From your own post

Why was he being denied his right?

He was refusing to comply with Garda instructions.
Were you by any chance listening to Sean O'Rourke today on radio 1? A resident where protesting was taking place said that not all protesters were from his local area. Those that weren't were just out for votes in the next election! Guess what? In that clip, a Councellor was arrested!

Banjo String · 29-09-2014 10:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

He was refusing to comply with Garda instructions.

You're contradicting yourself from here

Everyone has the right to protest.

Why didn't he have the right to protest, what trouble was he causing?

The Gardai are at risk of losing public support in large areas if they continue to refrain from being impartial. They are beginning to look like a private security firm for a private company in many of these videos.

Deleted User wrote: »

Were you by any chance listening to Sean O'Rourke today on radio 1? A resident where protesting was taking place said that not all protesters were from his local area. Those that weren't were just out for votes in the next election! Guess what? In that clip, a Councellor was arrested!

No I wasn't listening to him.

Enda Kenny isn't from Roscommon yet I seen him there on Saturday. Prob hoping for votes come next election.

(some councillors may agree with anti water protests, you understand that, right?)

Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

Comments