Detention laws

milkytigerrr

Not quite clear on this. Under s.30 Offences against the state act:

(3) Whenever a person is arrested under this section, he may be removed to and detained in custody in a Gárda Síochána station, a prison, or some other convenient place for a period of twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest and may, if an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of Chief Superintendent so directs, be so detained for a further period of twenty-four hours.

So that's a 48-hour total.
In my lecture notes I have scribbled down that it's been increased to 72 hours now. Am I delusional? Can someone clear this up?
ta!

Eru

milkytigerrr wrote:

Not quite clear on this. Under s.30 Offences against the state act:

(3) Whenever a person is arrested under this section, he may be removed to and detained in custody in a Gárda Síochána station, a prison, or some other convenient place for a period of twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest and may, if an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of Chief Superintendent so directs, be so detained for a further period of twenty-four hours.

So that's a 48-hour total.
In my lecture notes I have scribbled down that it's been increased to 72 hours now. Am I delusional? Can someone clear this up?
ta!

All detentions follow a pattern, first is on the say so off the Sergeant In Charge. Second is on the officer not below....... and then you get permission from a Judge.

Why have you scribbled a change? Im not aware of the S30 detention period being amended in recent times. Its been 72 since I joined anyway.

Our man in Havana

Was that not shot down recently in the High Court? Case where detention was ruled unlawful in that sect 30 detentions could not be increased by the district court.

milkytigerrr

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Why have you scribbled a change? Im not aware of the S30 detention period being amended in recent times. Its been 72 since I joined anyway.

Now I'm even more confused...
The Act itself says 24, then 24 if approved by a Chief Super. So thats 48.
Why are you saying 72? Am I really that bad at maths... god help me. Least I'm not doing accountancy exams...

Our man in Havana

The 72 is from where they could ask a judge to grant a further 24 hours. They was a problem with this recently where the High court ruled such an extension unlawful and released the prisoner.

Thirdfox

Citation? That's interesting... I argued for the abolition of the OASA for my criminal essay (in my fictional role as Minister for Justice)... the essay got torn to shreds by my lecturer

Our man in Havana

It was that case where the chief suspect in a murder died in the cells. The second accused was brought before the district court after his 48 hour detention had expired and was then released by the high court on the grounds that the district court had no authourity to extend his detention.

Esel

Bond-007 wrote:

It was that case where the chief suspect in a murder died in the cells. The second accused was brought before the district court after his 48 hour detention had expired and was then released by the high court on the grounds that the district court had no authourity to extend his detention.

Not so. The hearing took so long that the period expired during the hearing and before the judge granted the extension. Something about the judge taking detailed longhand notes, which slowed up the hearing considerably. The Garda (Superintendent?) brought the time situation to the judge's attention more than once, but the judge was of the opinion that as long as the period had not expired before the hearing commenced, he could grant a further extension. This was overruled on appeal.

Eru

esel wrote:

Not so. The hearing took so long that the period expired during the hearing and before the judge granted the extension. Something about the judge taking detailed longhand notes, which slowed up the hearing considerably. The Garda (Superintendent?) brought the time situation to the judge's attention more than once, but the judge was of the opinion that as long as the period had not expired before the hearing commenced, he could grant a further extension. This was overruled on appeal.

Correct. The judgement was not alone and had been used and accepted before. His 48 hours had expired and therefore he should have been free to walk and there was no grounds for an extension.

Oh and for the original OP, the additional 24 hours was put into law through Section 10 of the OAS Act 1998. So thats why you scribbled it in.

milkytigerrr

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Oh and for the original OP, the additional 24 hours was put into law through Section 10 of the OAS Act 1998. So thats why you scribbled it in.

Thanks alot for clearing that up!