garda members being illegally recorded

#1 · 27-03-2014 05:21PM #1

So, in relation to the Garda recording of phone calls in and put of stations, it has been said that this was an illegal practise as people were not aware they were being recorded.
Well what about the garda members in those stations?
Does the Garda Siochana as an organisation have the right to basically monitor their employees phone calls?
I am aware that gardai are not covered completely by employment law, but surely any employer does not have the right to record employees without telling them?

coylemj · 27-03-2014 05:58PM

bubblypop wrote: »

So, in relation to the Garda recording of phone calls in and put of stations, it has been said that this was an illegal practise as people were not aware they were being recorded.

.....

surely any employer does not have the right to record employees without telling them?

I'm not sure that the actual recording of the conversation is illegal, just that the contents of the recording cannot be used in any legal proceedings unless both parties were aware that it was being recorded.

benway · 27-03-2014 10:48PM

coylemj wrote: »

I'm not sure that the actual recording of the conversation is illegal,

It is, per s.98 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 as amended by s.13 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act, 1993 and S.I. No. 284/1997.

(6) In this section ‘intercept’ means listen to, or record by any means, in the course of its transmission, a telecommunications message but does not include such listening or recording where either the person on whose behalf the message is transmitted or the person intended to receive the message has consented to the listening or recording, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

4.—(1) A person guilty of an offence under—

... (f) section 37 , 63 , 84 , 87 , 98 or 99 of this Act,

shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £800 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both the fine and the imprisonment, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £50,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both the fine and the imprisonment.

(2) On conviction of a person on indictment for an offence to which subsection (1) relates the court may, in addition to any other penalty, order any apparatus, equipment or other thing used to commit the offence to be forfeited.

The whole thing is a mess.

coylemj · 27-03-2014 10:53PM

benway wrote: »

It is, per s.98 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 as amended by s.13 of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act, 1993 and S.I. No. 284/1997.

But you quoted this.....

but does not include such listening or recording where either the person on whose behalf the message is transmitted or the person intended to receive the message has consented to the listening or recording

Which suggests that it's not illegal if either one of the parties consents - which would clearly encompass the recording of the conversation by one of the parties.

That section appears to prohibit phone tapping (by a third party), not the recording by one of the parties to a conversation.

benway · 27-03-2014 11:07PM

Were rank-and-file Gardaí aware that the calls are being recorded? My understanding is that they weren't, but I'm open to correction.

If they were, while it may not illegal per se, but it's certainly bad practice at the very least.

coylemj · 27-03-2014 11:15PM

benway wrote: »

Were rank-and-file Gardaí aware that the calls are being recorded? My understanding is that they weren't, but I'm open to correction.

If they were, while it may not illegal per se, but it's certainly bad practice at the very least.

+1 The act says 'person' as opposed to 'body' so if someone rings xxx Garda station asking to speak to Garda yyy, it would clearly be illegal to record the conversation assuming neither the caller nor the individual Garda consents.

fr3d12 · 28-03-2014 03:32PM

bubblypop wrote: »

So, in relation to the Garda recording of phone calls in and put of stations, it has been said that this was an illegal practise as people were not aware they were being recorded.
Well what about the garda members in those stations?
Does the Garda Siochana as an organisation have the right to basically monitor their employees phone calls?
I am aware that gardai are not covered completely by employment law, but surely any employer does not have the right to record employees without telling them?

The way I understand it from listening to a solicitor on VB last night is that Gardai who were recorded without their knowledge could bring a civil suit against AGS.

28-03-2014 04:23PM

fr3d12 wrote: »

The way I understand it from listening to a solicitor on VB last night is that Gardai who were recorded without their knowledge could bring a civil suit against AGS.

I could only imagine the publics reaction to that!
Can't imagine any sympathy from anyone at this stage.

fr3d12 · 28-03-2014 06:01PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I could only imagine the publics reaction to that!
Can't imagine any sympathy from anyone at this stage.

If Gardai were to sue en masse it would not look good but I doubt the vast majority of members would even consider it anyway, that's not to say that recording them was ok, it is a shocking invasion of a persons fundamental right to privacy.

Carawaystick · 29-03-2014 12:37AM

the legislation linked has a 5 year sentence on indictment; so this is an arrestable offence.
Does a victim of an arrestable offence have a recourse to a higher level of compensation compared to non-arestable offences, or is it on an offence by offence basis.

I'm kind of assuming without checking, that there are some assault types that have maximum sentences less tha 5 years i.e. un/non-arrestable offences.

The whole thing is a cluster fe1c.
For a Minister to claim because the gsoc didn't tell him specially runs a coach and six through Ignorantia juris non excusat. The man is being paid to fun the justice and defence depts; he has an obligation to pay atttention to state bodies making reports.

also this is pertinant
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2001052300009#N15

fr3d12 · 29-03-2014 01:38AM

Carawaystick wrote: »

the legislation linked has a 5 year sentence on indictment; so this is an arrestable offence.
Does a victim of an arrestable offence have a recourse to a higher level of compensation compared to non-arestable offences, or is it on an offence by offence basis.

I'm kind of assuming without checking, that there are some assault types that have maximum sentences less tha 5 years i.e. un/non-arrestable offences.

The whole thing is a cluster fe1c.
For a Minister to claim because the gsoc didn't tell him specially runs a coach and six through Ignorantia juris non excusat. The man is being paid to fun the justice and defence depts; he has an obligation to pay atttention to state bodies making reports.

also this is pertinant
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2001052300009#N15

He'll probably try and convince us that because he was after the Govt. of the day on the Donegal case that it proves his good intentions now.

Shatter will blame everyone else before he ever admits being wrong.
He and the Govt. are simply using AGS to try and gain favour with the public, it's still a serious issue of course but so obvious that the opposition would react with comments portraying the absolute worst possible nightmare scenario and that does suit the Govt. to some degree.

Park Royal · 29-03-2014 09:19AM

RTE had the President of the Garda Representative Assoc on lunch time radio

news yesterday and he went through the phone situation as he understood it

for sometime with Richard Crowley ?.......up and down in and out .....detail

after detail.......

what bugs me is this broke on Tuesday and it took RTE until Friday lunch time

to get someone who could give firm information on the phone situation in the

various type offices........

if thats the best they can do well God help us .....

mrjoneill · 30-03-2014 12:38PM

HALFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (1997) was a case which involved phone interception at a UK constabulary station in a case involving sexual discrimination which the ECHR held was in violation of the ECHR. That was 1997, what were the Gardaí and other offices of the stated doing since is mind boggling. This case flagged I would have though everyone the dangers in intercepting phone calls without the parties consenting. And on top of that Ireland has statute put in place since that. Yet in An Garda Siochana they carry on oblivious to the above. The mind boggles to the incompetence. In the Halford case the ECHR awarded damages to her, so not only have we possible breach of privilege with lawyers and the possible quagmire that gets us into but we have here a situation where both the public and Gardaí whose statutory and civil liberties have being infringed are now entitled to damages.

Zambia · 30-03-2014 01:58PM

I know this May sound silly but is there anything in the press in relation to the following.

How many stations were recorded?
How many lines?
Who ordered the eaves dropping?
How was it done, were bugs put in every phone?
Where was all this data being stored?
What body had access to it? ( I mean who has the time to sift through all these calls)

I mean the devil is in the detail

Wildlife Actor · 30-03-2014 04:04PM

I suppose the Garda employment contract or warrant of appointment (whatever they use) doesn't have a general consent to recording, or would that be too forward thinking?

Five Lamps · 30-03-2014 09:32PM

I would be surprised if most Gardai didn't know about the recordings. Let's face it they were the ones using the recordings in cases. So even if few Gardai ever had to listen to these tapes there would have been plenty of hearsay about them.

Victor · 31-03-2014 10:33AM

Zambia wrote: »

How many stations were recorded?

I think I heard(!) 24 District Headquarters.

Zambia wrote: »

How many lines?

I presume all.

Zambia wrote: »

Who ordered the eaves dropping?

Higher up in Garda.

Zambia wrote: »

How was it done, were bugs put in every phone?

I presume a box was put on the point where the phone lines came into the station.

Zambia wrote: »

Where was all this data being stored?

Garda HQ.

Zambia wrote: »

What body had access to it? ( I mean who has the time to sift through all these calls)

Garda HQ / HQ units.

Santa Cruz · 31-03-2014 03:24PM

Five Lamps wrote: »

I would be surprised if most Gardai didn't know about the recordings. Let's face it they were the ones using the recordings in cases. So even if few Gardai ever had to listen to these tapes there would have been plenty of hearsay about them.

Surely if it was common knowledge the whistle blowers would have mentioned it or has anyone asked them about it. The report of the investigating commission will be very interesting as it should show who knew about it or if the info was ever used

Zambia · 31-03-2014 09:59PM

Victor wrote: »

I think I heard(!) 24 District Headquarters.
I presume all.
Higher up in Garda.
I presume a box was put on the point where the phone lines came into the station.
Garda HQ.
Garda HQ / HQ units.

Higher up in garda ? Someone signed the work order. If the garda can't say who well that's poor.

We spent millions on a project and no one can say who authorised it? See no one believes that

hfallada · 31-03-2014 10:56PM

There was stickers on the phones telling the garda's that phone calls were recorded. It was known to garda's that it was being done

Zambia · 01-04-2014 07:14AM

I have no issue with calls being recorded the fact no member of the Garda command can come out and explain this away is disappointing.

garda members being illegally recorded

Comments