Public Order offences and Garda powers

disciplined

-I'm a regular poster, but I'm going anonymous for this hypothetical question-

If someone had been charged with Section 4 and Section 6. Intoxication in public place and threatening/insulting/abusive behaviour in a public place.

Lets say the charges occurred because the accused witnessed a Garda pushing and loudly verbally abusing a man (no relation) outside a bar, who had himself called the Gardai when a bar employee had punched him. If the accused then asked them to stop and listen to this man's case, the garda took offence at the intervention, put the accused in a squad car and drove him to the station.

If that person lived abroad, (non-resident for 2 years) and was just home for a few days at the time; and the summons was delivered in an unsealed envelope through the letterbox to his family home.

If at no stage did he use foul language/raise his voice, and he had NO previous record, and had an excellent background personally and professionally;
What I would like to know is basically, where would such a person stand legally, could such a person avoid personal appearance through hiring legal representation, and what would be the likely outcome? Any and all opinions and personal points of view welcome.

-if this post requires editing, please advise, and I will comply-

haz

disciplined wrote:

could such a person avoid personal appearance through hiring legal representation, and what would be the likely outcome?

The Phoenix bog cuttings indicate that such an intemperate do-gooder would get fined about 600 euro total for the 2 offences (drunk & disorderly and insulting a member of the Gardai, assuming such person was intoxicated and would make a poor witness). How much would you enrich the legal representation by having them 'fess up for you?

disciplined

Being more interested in principle than money, I would have to say that I would much rather pay 2500 euro to a solicitor, than 600 to the court.

As it stands, if the accused were to travel to represent himself, he would already be out of pocket by a tidy four figure sum anyway.

dermot_sheehan

disciplined wrote:

Being more interested in principle than money, I would have to say that I would much rather pay 2500 euro to a solicitor, than 600 to the court.

As it stands, if the accused were to travel to represent himself, he would already be out of pocket by a tidy four figure sum anyway.

section 4 requires you to be drunk in such a state to be a danger to your self or others, maximum 127euro fine.

section 6 is the more serious, threatening or abusive words or behaviour likely to provoke a breach of the peace or reckless as to whether the peace is broken, 635 euro fine and/or 3 months.

For the second element, causing a breach of the peace, uk case law has held that there must be someone else present there other then the police officers since a police officer on duty can not breach the peace.

This type of argumentation is not likely to go down well in district court though, a district court having several of these cases to go through would genererally believe a sober garda on duty over someone who has been drinking. Your only hope of succeeding would be to get legal representation and even still the district judge might not listen, you might have to appeal to the circuit court to get the conviction quashed.


If you've not answered the summons, there's probably a bench warrant out for your arrest now, this doesn't look too good on your record.

disciplined

A bench warrant would most certainly not look good. The accused would of course appear for the summons. Representation cannot be used in lieue I assume?

Is this just a case of the Garda is assumed correct, the accused assumed wrong, close case? Not very confidence inspiring is it?

Our man in Havana

Representation cannot be used in lieue I assume?

Of course they can be but the judge at his/her whim may demand you attend and may adjourn the matter to another date.

Is this just a case of the Garda is assumed correct, the accused assumed wrong, close case? Not very confidence inspiring is it?

That is a fairly good take on it. You would need another witness to disprove the garda. I know of a Section 4 case that required 3 adjourments and several non garda witnesses to get the case dismissed. I know that the legal fees were far far in excess of the fine that would have been imposed.

haz

disciplined wrote:

Being more interested in principle than money, I would have to say that I would much rather pay 2500 euro to a solicitor, than 600 to the court.

Ha Ha! I fell off my perch at that righteous indignation! The hypothetical fellow, up to the gills in alcohol and interfering with a law officer performing law enforcement duties, may have been a little lacking in judgment. I hope that he would be sober before climbing on the high horse, or handing his wallet over to some representative offering to establish whatever "principle" was in the bottle.

ArphaRima

haz
I bet you're one of those people who stands by when they see something bad happen. Maybe its somebody shoplifting, somebody drink driving, or somebody being assaulted by the Gardai. If people dont stand up for what they believe is right, then corruption prevails.
Im sure the accused person in question believed they were doing the right thing.

A Garda might not agree, but most people would.

haz

fluffer wrote:

I bet you're one of those people who stands by when they see something bad happen. Maybe its somebody shoplifting, somebody drink driving, or somebody being assaulted by the Gardai.

No, I would be inclined to assist the garda in dealing with "Intoxication in public place and threatening/insulting/abusive behaviour in a public place", if it seemed appropriate. In general it is not appropriate, and is very rarely helpful, for anyone to interfere in the duties of a law officer, judge, lawyer, priest or doctor (no matter how right you think you are), especially when intoxicated and lacking in judgment. This intervention clearly did not help anyone. As anyone who has handled drunks disturbing the peace will tell you, it is both difficult and dangerous. Training is readily available in active citizenship, including conflict resolution - quite possibly at your local law enforcement emporium.

ArphaRima

Great another Garda telling people that they do a very important and difficult job, and therefore should be above the laws they enforce.

I agree that gardai do an important and difficult job. I disagree that they may bully and harrass ordinary citizens. And I most certainly find it abhorrent that the gardai have charges "in the pocket" that they can dole out with little chance of being contested. That is wrong.

haz

fluffer wrote:

Great another Garda telling people that they do a very important and difficult job, and therefore should be above the laws they enforce.

No, but I'll set out three points from courses I attended many years ago (free, with the ambulance service and the police): 1) Never actively intervene verbally or physically in someone else's dispute, awareness of your passive presence alone is more calming than your intervention; 2) Never touch another person or their property, not even a fingertip on the shoulder, without their permission; and 3) If you must intervene verbally, then address yourself to the perceived victim and not to the perceived aggressor.

The third point is probably the most important because it alerts the potential aggressor whilst allowing him or her an avenue for reducing aggression - even if the garda turns round and says "**** off, sonny", it has done as much good as any other intervention. I can not recall a single instance (in countries with repressive regimes and democracies with admirable police forces) in which a member of the public has done good by intervening in an arrest.

Obviously you must physically intervene if you genuinely believe that health or life is at risk, but I have stood between 300 pound thugs and their victims to ask if the victim required assistance and halted the aggression without being hit by either.

haz

disciplined wrote:

-I'm a regular poster, but I'm going anonymous for this hypothetical question-
If someone had been charged with Section 4 and Section 6. Intoxication in public place and threatening/insulting/abusive behaviour in a public place.

A similar case of a drunk interfering with a garda is reported in the Irish Times today. It may be of assistance to someone of "excellent background personally and professionally":

Probation for Peace Commissioner

A peace commissioner was cleared yesterday of breach of the peace but convicted of being drunk and a danger to himself or others. Brian Taylor (47), Shanowen Avenue, Santry, Dublin, denied the charges arising from an incident at Lemon Street / Duke Lane in Dublin on September 26th.
Judge Mary Collins had viewed CCTV evidence. "I don't think it would be right to convict in relation to Section 6 [breach of the peace]," she said, "but I think the matter could have been defused better so I am convicting on the Section 4 [drunk and a danger]."
Mr Taylor claimed he was abused an roughly treated when he asked a garda his name, while gardai said he was drunk and abusive and that he had to be hit with a baton to restrain him.
Judge Collins said she would apply the Probation Act if 300 euro was paid to St Vincent de Paul.

Turner

disciplined wrote:

-I'm a regular poster, but I'm going anonymous for this hypothetical question-

If someone had been charged with Section 4 and Section 6. Intoxication in public place and threatening/insulting/abusive behaviour in a public place.

Lets say the charges occurred because the accused witnessed a Garda pushing and loudly verbally abusing a man (no relation) outside a bar, who had himself called the Gardai when a bar employee had punched him. If the accused then asked them to stop and listen to this man's case, the garda took offence at the intervention, put the accused in a squad car and drove him to the station.

If that person lived abroad, (non-resident for 2 years) and was just home for a few days at the time; and the summons was delivered in an unsealed envelope through the letterbox to his family home.

If at no stage did he use foul language/raise his voice, and he had NO previous record, and had an excellent background personally and professionally;
What I would like to know is basically, where would such a person stand legally, could such a person avoid personal appearance through hiring legal representation, and what would be the likely outcome? Any and all opinions and personal points of view welcome.

-if this post requires editing, please advise, and I will comply-

Maybe next time "somebody" might mind their own business and not try and obstruct the work of a Garda.

Gobán Saor

Chief--- wrote:

Maybe next time "somebody" might mind their own business and not try and obstruct the work of a Garda.

A bit harsh, Chief, methinks. I am generally extremely supportive of the Gardai and the difficult and dangerous work that its many fine members perform on the part of an often ungrateful public. But, (you just knew there had to be a "but", eh?) there are a very small minority of Gardai who abuse their powers and thus act unlawfully. A member of the publiv witnessing such unlawful behaviour on the part of a Guard is entitled to intervene, no? Mind you, any such member of the public might want to take the precaution of being sober at the time:D or risk facing credibility issues.

johnnyskeleton

disciplined wrote:

What I would like to know is basically, where would such a person stand legally, could such a person avoid personal appearance through hiring legal representation, and what would be the likely outcome? Any and all opinions and personal points of view welcome.

While this thread is quite old, I might just take up one point. If a solicitor has never met his client, it might pose ethical difficulties for the solicitor to appear based on a phonecall/letter etc. A solicitor might appear to meet the summons, ask for witness statements or a precis of the evidence and adjourn the matter for some time. The solicitor could ask the prosecuting garda to excuse the accused on that occasion, but the person should be before the court. Once the precis has been received, it will disclose the evidence against the hypothetical accused.

Also, if the hypothetical accused wished to fight the case a solicitor, in my view, can not state the person's case and tender it as evidence, nor can they contradict the garda's evidence without some witness to the fact (i.e. either the accused or someone else who can confirm their story). A lawyer in such a situation would be limited to suggesting to the garda that their version of the events is wrong and if the garda denies this, there is not much else that can be done.

UrbanFox

Chief--- wrote:

Maybe next time "somebody" might mind their own business and not try and obstruct the work of a Garda.

Sounds like excellent advice especially if the intervening party is lubricated.

Is is not a specific offence to interfere with a Garda in the execution of their duties ? If so, what is the actual offence ?

johnnyskeleton

UrbanFox wrote:

Sounds like excellent advice especially if the intervening party is lubricated.

Is is not a specific offence to interfere with a Garda in the execution of their duties ? If so, what is the actual offence ?

s.19(3) of the Public Order Act, 1994.

Public Order Act, 1994 wrote:

Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty, knowing that he is or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

There must be an intent to obstruct the officer and simply questioning them as to what they are doing or their power of arrest might not fall within the scope of the offence.

Trojan911

disciplined wrote:

Lets say the charges occurred because the accused witnessed a Garda pushing and loudly verbally abusing a man (no relation) outside a bar, who had himself called the Gardai when a bar employee had punched him. If the accused then asked them to stop and listen to this man's case, the garda took offence at the intervention, put the accused in a squad car and drove him to the station.

The problem seen here from reading your post is the Garda did not appear to be in need of assistance therefore should have been left alone to deal with the incident.

If the accused was so offended by his behaviour then steps to identify the Garda should have been taken i.e. shoulder number and a complaint registered at the local Garda Station for say, oppressive conduct etc.

Intervening with drink on board is not going to help a persons case irrespective of what ones intentions are. You do not know the full facts as to why this incident occurred.

By all means intervene, at your own risk, if the officer is getting assaulted and has no apparent back up but it's best to let them deal without interference from Joe Public when it is not required (refer to Para 2 for alternative)...

All the best...


TJ911...

haz

Trojan911 wrote:

You do not know the full facts as to why this incident occurred.

I think the CCTV footage was a little bit of a giveaway ... Judge Collins seemed to think so anyway.

Trojan911

haz wrote:

I think the CCTV footage was a little bit of a giveaway ... Judge Collins seemed to think so anyway.

I am referring to the OP's entry #1, not the "Similar Incident" you have posted.

TJ911...

haz

Trojan911 wrote:

I am referring to the OP's entry #1, not the "Similar Incident" you have posted.

Of course you were, and the original poster's "Similar Incident" was entirely hypothetical.

johnnyskeleton

haz wrote:

Of course you were, and the original poster's "Similar Incident" was entirely hypothetical.

There are some distinguishing features between the OP's incident and the incident which was reported:

Indo wrote:

A PEACE commissioner was cleared yesterday of a breach of the peace but convicted of being drunk and a danger to himself or others.

Brian Taylor (47) of Shanowen Avenue, Santry, Dublin, denied the charges arising out of an incident at Lemon Street/Duke Lane on September 26.

Judge Mary Collins, who viewed CCTV evidence of the incident before making a ruling, said while the video was "not of much assistance" it was in relation to the times given during the case.

"I don't think it would be right to convict in relation to the Section 6 (breach of the peace), but I think the matter could have probably been defused better so I am convicting on the Section 4 (drunk and a danger)," she said.

She said she was prepared to leave Mr Taylor without a conviction if he paid €300 to charity.

Mr Taylor claimed he was abused and treated roughly when he asked a garda his name; while gardai said he was drunk, abusive and had to be hit with a baton to restrain him after his arrest.

Dublin District Court heard the incident took place after Mr Taylor and his friend, Derek Siggins, attended a birthday party in Lillie's Bordello nightclub.

They were walking for a taxi when they saw another man admiring a sports car parked on the street.

Remarks were passed and gardai were called having been told Mr Taylor was allegedly interfering with the sports car. Gda Brendan Wright said when he asked Mr Taylor for his name, the peace commissioner instead demanded his (the garda's) name.

Mr Taylor, the garda said, was unsteady on his feet and continued to refuse to reveal his identity.

He arrested Mr Taylor, handcuffed him and in a struggle to put him into a patrol car, Gda Wright said he struck him on the leg with his baton because Mr Taylor was kicking out.

Mr Taylor believed the gardai had been called for some mischievous reason.

"A gentleman of my age would not be involved in that sort of nonsense (interfering with a car)," he said.

Mr Taylor said he gave his name, but when he asked Gda Wright for his name, he was thrown up against the garda car, handcuffed and bundled into it.

Judge Collins said there had been a lot of aggression from both sides.