Hoax emergency service call

ezra_

I was chatting to an RNLI volunteer yesterday and he told me that if a person places a hoax call, they are liable (upon conviction) for:

50% of the cost of the call out
a term of imprisonment of up to 6 months

Is this true?

From my FE1 days, I remember that the district court can impose a custodial sentence up to 6 months but has very tight limits on the amount that can be imposed as a fine.
I can't also imagine a legislative provision that is as open ended as "50% of the cost of the call out", given that the 'costs' of dispatching a helicopter and lifeboat can get very large, very quickly, so a call that resulted in both being dispatched would almost need to be heard in the high court!

What is the actual legal state of place regarding this?

OU812

Should be 150% of the cost of the callout. with the extra 50% going into a fund.

GM228

No charge of 50%, but a hoax call in general is a criminal offence which can attract a fine of upto €5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 12 months in the DC (or a fine of up to €75,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years on indictment) as per S13 of the Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951 (as amended).

ezra_

OU812 wrote: »

Should be 150% of the cost of the callout. with the extra 50% going into a fund.

I agree.
However, I'm just wondering what the actual legal position is.

GM228

ezra_ wrote: »

I agree.
However, I'm just wondering what the actual legal position is.

The legal position is as I outlined in my previous post.

Offences in connection with telephones.

13.—(1) Any person who—

(a) sends by telephone any message that is grossly offensive, or is indecent, obscene or menacing, or

(b) for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety to another person―

(i) sends by telephone any message that the sender knows to be false, or

(ii) persistently makes telephone calls to another person without reasonable cause,

commits an offence.

(2) A person found guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on conviction―

(a) if tried on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €75,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to both, or

(b) if tried summarily, to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both.

(3) A contravention of this section is an offence under thePost Office Act 1908 .

(4) On convicting a person for an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to any other penalty imposed for the offence, order any apparatus, equipment or other thing used in the course of committing the offence to be forfeited to the State.

(5) In this section, ‘message’ includes a text message sent by means of a short message service (SMS) facility.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's nothing in the criminal law, perhaps. But, depending on the facts and the harm that resulted from the call-out, there might be a prospect of a successful action by the RNLI (or whatever body was hoaxed) against the caller for malicious falsehood, fraudulent misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's nothing in the criminal law, perhaps. But, depending on the facts and the harm that resulted from the call-out, there might be a prospect of a successful action by the RNLI (or whatever body was hoaxed) against the caller for malicious falsehood, fraudulent misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation.

Might there be a quasi-contract? The service provider has been asked to do (expensive) work. While they don't normally ask for payment, that is for genuine cases of need, not for hoaxes.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ezra_

Sequestrate part of any social welfare payments if the person isn't working or isn't working that much.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ezra_

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You aren't stopping it, your are just applying a levy.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wasn't there a change to allow fines be deducted?

DSP can make deduction of 20%(?) where there has been an over-payment.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

I see no reason to assume that fake callouts to the RNLI, etc, all come from people on social welfare, or that people on social welfare are more likely to make hoax callouts than people not on social welfare. This strikes me as loutish, immature, probably drunken, behaviour; I assure you that the middle classes are quite capable of that.

prinzeugen

Unrelated but similar.

Back in the mid 90's I remember a news story about 2 people that had gone climbing in the Scottish highlands and got lost, without the right equipment etc.

Found 2 days later in a hotel after a massive search operation. They did not bother telling anyone they were safe.

They sold the "survival story" to a paper and promptly got taken before the courts as the operation to search for them was into six figures.

The £25,000 they got for selling the story to a tabloid was split between the RAF, mountain rescue and the other local agencies.

The fuel bill for the RAF helicopter was around £100,000 IIRC.

So yes the full cost of a hoax call should be paid by the person making it.

Peregrinus

For every deliberate hoax callout, there's probably twenty callouts that are due not to malice but to stupidity, lack of preparation and planning, or the taking of stupid risks. In terms of endangering rescue workers and wasting resources, this is a much bigger problem.

But the rescue agencies generally don't want to penalise people for calling them out in such circumstances. Their priority is always safety of life; however irresponsible people have been, if they need rescuing the rescue agencies don't want them not to call because they fear financial penalties.

This creates a culture in which, generally, there is no instinct to seek to bill people for callouts, even avoidable callouts or callouts that should never have been necessary.

realitykeeper

If I were floundering at sea, I would be glad to accept rescue by the RNLI. That however does not lessen my dislike of all things royal. The taxes used to fund lifeboat rescue should be diverted to the establishment of a new lifeboat rescue service, without royal in its name in my opinion. Or, the RNLI could continue to receive funding if it opts to drop the royal.

Removing the royal may inspire more volunteers.

ezra_

realitykeeper wrote: »

If I were floundering at sea, I would be glad to accept rescue by the RNLI. That however does not lessen my dislike of all things royal. The taxes used to fund lifeboat rescue should be diverted to the establishment of a new lifeboat rescue service, without royal in its name in my opinion. Or, the RNLI could continue to receive funding if it opts to drop the royal.

Removing the royal may inspire more volunteers.

RNLI gets no tax money from either the British or Irish governments.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

realitykeeper

ezra_ wrote: »

RNLI gets no tax money from either the British or Irish governments.

Yet they are funded from somewhere and I doubt it is all from private sources. I have never given anything to the RNLI, nor shall I. I would if they dropped the R.

GM228

ezra_ wrote: »

RNLI gets no tax money from either the British or Irish governments.

They get €175,000 a year from the Irish government.

ezra_

GM228 wrote: »

They get €175,000 a year from the Irish government.

RNLI website says differently - no funding from UK or Irish government.

ezra_

realitykeeper wrote: »

If I were floundering at sea, I would be glad to accept rescue by the RNLI. That however does not lessen my dislike of all things royal. The taxes used to fund lifeboat rescue should be diverted to the establishment of a new lifeboat rescue service, without royal in its name in my opinion. Or, the RNLI could continue to receive funding if it opts to drop the royal.

Removing the royal may inspire more volunteers.

I think that is called the Coast Guard - they get a lot of funding from the Government.

Also, I don't think they are short on volunteers.

GM228

ezra_ wrote: »

RNLI website says differently - no funding from UK or Irish government.

They have been geting a share of the UKs £1m Inshore and Inland Rescue Boat Grant scheme since 2014 (around £47,000 per year) and an annual €175,000 grant from the Irish government, it used to be €150,000 but it increased in 2013.

GM228

realitykeeper wrote: »

If I were floundering at sea, I would be glad to accept rescue by the RNLI. That however does not lessen my dislike of all things royal. The taxes used to fund lifeboat rescue should be diverted to the establishment of a new lifeboat rescue service, without royal in its name in my opinion. Or, the RNLI could continue to receive funding if it opts to drop the royal.

Removing the royal may inspire more volunteers.

Why, what is wrong with "royal" in the title?

ohnonotgmail

GM228 wrote: »

Why, what is wrong with "royal" in the title?

let us not go down this road. the mere mention of the word seems to cause some people physical pain.

ohnonotgmail

GM228 wrote: »

They have been geting a share of the UKs £1m Inshore and Inland Rescue Boat Grant scheme since 2014 (around £47,000 per year) and an annual €175,000 grant from the Irish government, it used to be €150,000 but it increased in 2013.

in fairness that is a tiny part of their budget. everything else is self-funded.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

if they refused to be treated in a hospital by doctor who trained at the RCSI they could be waiting a while.

i doubt even gerry adams would be that obstinate

GM228

Got a royal flush in the poker game last week, the chips all came my way.

I went to a show at the RDS last year, had a great time.

Got a postcard recently with a post stamp from the Royal Mail, had a heartfealt message on it.

Got my insurance renewal recently with Royal & Sun Alliance, was €200 cheaper than the rest.

I watched the Royal Bank of Scotland sponsored 6 Nations earlier this year, fantastic rugby played.

The RNLI saved my life many years ago, thank god for that.

Placed (and won) a few bets on last years Royal Ascot, that was one Saturday night paid for.

Have a few Bank of England £20 notes with some royal figurine on it (apparently she is well known) for my trip to London next week, looking forward to spending those.

*"Dear Friends", I was once in a "bicycle race", "fun it" was and I was "doing all right", until I got "blurred vision" as I noticed some "fat bottomed girls" and then realised "jesus" I "lost my opportunity" and I was "the loser in the end". Ah well "the show must go on". This was all a bit "impromptu" - you gotta love Queen.



P.S, just watched a lovely rendetion of "Royals" by Lorde on MTV as I was sipping my favourite Royal Tea (with Arnotts Royal biscuit cakes of course) whilst browsing on the box for the next episode of the Royal Family, but none were on so I'll have to settle for Casino Royal[e] instead.



*EDIT: that Queen bit was just dreadful

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What was the crime?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

realitykeeper

ezra_ wrote: »

I think that is called the Coast Guard - they get a lot of funding from the Government.

Also, I don't think they are short on volunteers.

Really? I thought the Navy performed that function and of course they do get a lot of money.

realitykeeper

GM228 wrote: »

Why, what is wrong with "royal" in the title?

I don`t like it.

realitykeeper

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Correct

realitykeeper

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if they refused to be treated in a hospital by doctor who trained at the RCSI they could be waiting a while.

i doubt even gerry adams would be that obstinate

I would take the treatment because I paid. I would not donate in a charitable way.

GM228

realitykeeper wrote: »

Really? I thought the Navy performed that function and of course they do get a lot of money.

It's the function of the Coast Guard (under Irish and international law by the way), they are just assisted by the Navy, Air Corps etc from time to time.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nope. If you make a false report to the police, you might be charged with wasting police time. But in this case the couple concerned did go into the hills and did not return when or where expected, and others called out the rescue services in the genuine belief that the couple must be in trouble. So who are you going to charge, and with what?

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Wasting police time is a good catch all one for that situation.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nope. If you make a false report to the police, you might be charged with wasting police time. But in this case the couple concerned did go into the hills and did not return when or where expected, and others called out the rescue services in the genuine belief that the couple must be in trouble. So who are you going to charge, and with what?

Without a link or something more concrete we can only speculate why any monies would be handed over by the courts (if that is even the case), the poster who mentioned it may recall incorrectly something which happened perhaps 20 years ago.

Perhaps the money was a donation, or perhaps there was some sort of criminal element to it - mayby the couple knew they were being searched for when relaxing in their hotel and then failed to clarify they were safe. Or perhaps there was some sort of civil case, mayby there is some obscure Scottish tort for profit from untruths we are unaware about - mayby they lied to the paper who told the survival story.

Without more we can only speculate.

Victor

realitykeeper wrote: »

Really? I thought the Navy performed that function and of course they do get a lot of money.

Coast Guard does more shore, inshore and coastal work. Naval Service would do more offshore stuff.

ezra_

realitykeeper wrote: »

Really? I thought the Navy performed that function and of course they do get a lot of money.

Coast Guard helicopter rescue is outsourced, it isn't the Navy. Some private company has the contract.

The Defence Forces have one rescue helicopter which can also assist, there are five Coast Guard helicopters plus one standby (not sure what the fleet is now after R116 went down).

Navy vessels will only assist with a rescue if they are in the area, it wouldn't be the norm for them to be deployed if the coast guard / RNLI are able to cover it.

GM228

ezra_ wrote: »

Coast Guard helicopter rescue is outsourced, it isn't the Navy. Some private company has the contract.

The Defence Forces have one rescue helicopter which can also assist, there are five Coast Guard helicopters plus one standby (not sure what the fleet is now after R116 went down).

Navy vessels will only assist with a rescue if they are in the area, it wouldn't be the norm for them to be deployed if the coast guard / RNLI are able to cover it.

CHC Ireland operate the helicopters, all full time staff are also employed by CHC.

We had 4 + 1 spare (now obviously just 4 in the fleet). CHC are to purchase a new Sikorsky S-92 to replace Rescue 116 at a cost of €40m.

The Air Corps actually have 8 helicopters (6 x Agusta Westland AW39 and 2 x Eurocopter EC135 P2) suitable for rescue and air ambulance missions, however they are not used for such. They instead use 2 CASSA CN235 planes to support the Coast Guard.

ezra_

GM228 wrote: »

CHC Ireland operate the helicopters, all full time staff are also employed by CHC.

We had 4 + 1 spare (now obviously just 4 in the fleet). CHC are to purchase a new Sikorsky S-92 to replace Rescue 116 at a cost of €40m.

The Air Corps actually have 8 helicopters (6 x Agusta Westland AW39 and 2 x Eurocopter EC135 P2) suitable for rescue and air ambulance missions, however they are not used for such. They instead use 2 CASSA CN235 planes to support the Coast Guard.

Sorry, I meant that they have one helicopter that is used as rescue vehiclie (I knew they had other machines)

My partner had cause to need a helicopter rescue (inland, not out at sea) and it was a DF helicopter. Talking to them, they mentioned they were basically as 'very fast ambulance' and are treated as such. CHC get the call for the off shore events, or specific other events where it makes more sense for their machine to be used.

GM228

ezra_ wrote: »

Sorry, I meant that they have one helicopter that is used as rescue vehiclie (I knew they had other machines)

My partner had cause to need a helicopter rescue (inland, not out at sea) and it was a DF helicopter. Talking to them, they mentioned they were basically as 'very fast ambulance' and are treated as such. CHC get the call for the off shore events, or specific other events where it makes more sense for their machine to be used.

The Coast Guard are also responsible for all inshore events.

Air Corps don't have any DF helicopters, most likely it was the Eurocopter EC135 P2 (which are similarish) of which there are 2. Yes they are suitble for use as an air ambulance but don't perform that duty for rescue missions. For them to supply a helicopter for such a mission would be non existant since the Coast Guard exclusively took the role from the Air Corps in 2004 (perhaps the event you speek of occured prior to then).

CHC took an 8 year contract for exclusive srarch and rescue in 2004 and it was renewed in 2012 for a further 10 years. Part of that contract saw the Air Corps dispand it's activities in search and rescue with the exception of supplying a CASA as support for maritime patrol.

EDIT: By DF I was thinkin you were referring to Dragon Fly which is a brand of helicopter similar to the Eurocopter, but you probably meant Defence Forces.