Gardaí and underage searches

pirelli

Victor wrote: »

I was going to play this: http://www.boards.ie/gathering/setmypeoplefree.jpg

But I'll play this instead:
QUOTE]


Ha Ha not bad, But! thats your 33,501 post.Not 33,500 which you wasted on mentioning the gradient of a steep hill you cycled on with your bicycle.
But as a consolation for this unfortunate development ( to keep in tone with potential monks tone...hee hee ) I have provided a link to the ghost rider website, in this movie Ghost Rider tackles a 90 degree angle when he rides vertically up a 100 meter building on a 'Bike'.
http://www.ghostridermovie.net/

johnnyskeleton

dK1NG wrote: »

Hush now Johnny, dont ya know "the innocent have nothing to fear":D

It's ironic that the gardai take this stance, because the whole purpose of the constitution and our system of constitutional rights is to protect the innocent from having their privacy interfered with.

And I'll never be quiet when the constitution is being torn apart.

dK1NG

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's ironic that the gardai take this stance, because the whole purpose of the constitution and our system of constitutional rights is to protect the innocent from having their privacy interfered with.

And I'll never be quiet when the constitution is being torn apart.

Johnny, just to follow up on this....

What do you think about various measures introduced to combat organised crime/ terrorism etc etc etc that have the effect of impinging on civil liberties? (bail, increased detention, confiscation, reverse burdens, right to silence etc)

Are they justifiable/ proportionate, or is the media frenzy simply giving the Gov. the excuse to bring in draconian powers? Media reporting of crime is undoubtedly distorted, with the effect taht the fear of crime is actually greater than the threat of crime. Popular opinion therefore acquiesces (even demands) that harsh measures be brought in to deal with this "growing" problem.

Can we trust the courts to act as a proper safeguard in this regard? I know they have rejected the notion that the innocent have nothing to fear (in theory anyway, but whether they do so in practice is open to debate), but then, arguably, bow down to the legislature.


Twould be interesting to hear some viewpoints on this.:)

johnnyskeleton

dK1NG wrote: »

What do you think about various measures introduced to combat organised crime/ terrorism etc etc etc that have the effect of impinging on civil liberties? (bail, increased detention, confiscation, reverse burdens, right to silence etc)

I think there is an ever increasing void between politicians and the criminal justice system. Policitians seem to bring in laws to allow things that are never used. What's happened to electronic tagging from the 2006 act? One politician tried to put the witness protection scheme on a statutory footing, until they were told that the gardai don't want this. Another wanted to bring in a self defence bill (based on public outcry etc), until they were told that their bill doesn't change the law at all.

So the former Minister, who was unwilling to spend money on crime fighting, but at the same time wanted to seem tough on crime, brought in a load of these measures but I think they are just empty provisions.

When the 2007 bill was released it seemed pretty shocking, but the actual act was relatively mild. I don't think the right to silence provisions are anything to worry about for the moment - similar powers have been around since 1984 but they are very rarely used (because it's too much hassle for the gardai to invoke them). When they are used, they will only be used in very limited circumstances and are likely to be challenged.

The bail provisions, having to swear a statement etc, seem to be stupid.

Are they justifiable/ proportionate, or is the media frenzy simply giving the Gov. the excuse to bring in draconian powers?

I don't think they are either; I think they are half baked and likely to be found unconstitutional.

Media reporting of crime is undoubtedly distorted, with the effect taht the fear of crime is actually greater than the threat of crime. Popular opinion therefore acquiesces (even demands) that harsh measures be brought in to deal with this "growing" problem.

The dogs on the street know that if you want to combat crime in any meaningful way you need to:
1) employ more gardai and put them on patrol
2) employ more detective gardai and gardai who are prepared to tackle dangerous crime
3) employ more solicitors in the CPS / State solicitors so that books of evidence can be prepared in a matter a days
4) invest in more drug treatment places
5) build more community centres to prevent kids choosing a life of crime over a more regular life
6) provide basic standards in prisons so that a term of imprisonment offers people a chance to recover and / or get a job
7) empannel more judges so that there is a much shorter wait for a trial date

But of course all these things cost lots of the tax payer's money, so instead they just blast out legislation that is unnecessary, unwanted and an erosion of our rights.

Can we trust the courts to act as a proper safeguard in this regard? I know they have rejected the notion that the innocent have nothing to fear (in theory anyway, but whether they do so in practice is open to debate), but then, arguably, bow down to the legislature.

The courts are bound by the law. They can interpret the legislation in the context of a fair trial, or if the legislation is challenged on constitutional grounds they can find it unconsitutional, but otherwise they have to apply the law.

kopparberg

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

...& then take their badge numbers and make a complaint that the gardai:
A) had no reasonable cause to suspect you of possessing drugs
searched you without consent and without formally invoking their powers under the misuse of drugs act
C) did not inform you in a language that you could understand or at all why they were searching you & what their exact entitlement to search was.

You probably wont get very far (gardai being absolutely truthful at all times :rolleyes: ), but it's a good excuse for sabre rattling.

read this was a discussion page sounds laike advice (or a command to me)

kopparberg

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

..... to the original post, which concerned a search outside of garda powers.

section 23 misuse of drugs act no a garda power now you should stay on law school because the real world is a dangerous place

johnnyskeleton

kopparberg wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

..... to the original post, which concerned a search outside of garda powers.

section 23 misuse of drugs act no a garda power now you should stay on law school because the real world is a dangerous place

I can't work out quite what you're saying. This real world place you speak of, is that what they write about in the Evening Herald?

kopparberg

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

kopparberg wrote: »

I can't work out quite what you're saying. This real world place you speak of, is that what they write about in the Evening Herald?

YES