What Should be Dealt with By Caution or fine on the spot?

deadwood

I know road traffic and new public order fcps notices are in existence.

The adult caution scheme has a fairly limited scope, but a good idea in my view.

Any other offences that could be dealt with in this way?

I think a fcps or a caution/acknowledgement by offender on the spot would save a lot of needless court/file preparation time, paperwork and money.
Section 3 (Misuse of Drugs or "personal use") first-timers could get a fine and caution. If they're caught again, a check on PULSE will show a previous caution and th can be prosecuted as normal.

Any other offences which could be dealt with in this way?

metman

Here we can issue tickets for:

* intentionally harassing or scaring people
* being drunk and disorderly in public
* destroying or damaging property
* petty shoplifting
* selling alcohol to underage customers
* selling alcohol to somebody who is obviously drunk
* using fireworks after curfew
* trespassing on the railway
* wasting police time
* misuse of the telecoms system

deadwood

metman wrote: »

Here we can issue tickets for:
* wasting police time

I've been accused of that myself!

FGR

metman wrote: »

Here we can issue tickets for:

* petty shoplifting

This I would wholeheartedly support over here!

Eru

Take the most common calls in your area, thats the one you want to deal with by ticket.

Shoplifting for anything under a certain amount, whatever the powers that be decide it should be. As you said, Section 3 drugs takes too much police and lab time for what its worth. Section 2 assaults are another.

In fact I would say any road traffic and summons only offences within certain limits. Then add in hybrid offences on the lower end of the scale. For example, the DPP gave directions that certain hybrids can be dealt with by summons well why not give the option of a ticket and let the law / DPP set a limit on them for people that dont qualify for adult caution.

An example being criminal damage. Messing with a phone box or smashing a window is summary but ever try and get a member of staff from Eircom to court? wont happen so a ticket would be a nice way of handling it.

The same problem still exists though, who enforces the tickets and will we end up chasing people like we do with warrants or will they simple go unpaid like many warrants, Luas, CIE and county council fines?

ScubaDave

Road traffic offences which are summons only .....

*Reg Plates
*Exhausts
etc etc

Basicly boy racer offences which currently require a court appearance

TheNog

First off Deadwood this is a great idea. Any concept to create an additional buffer or chance to keep honest decent people away from the courts should be considered. Fair play to ye for bringing it up

I would like to see a formal reporting concept brought in here for similar offences that have already been covered in the above posts.

There is also one offence I would especially like to see added to the list and that is dangerous driving. How many times have we got reports of a dangerous driver but no one willing to go to court but wish the driver to warned only?
Personally I have stopped warning a driver because I feel it may leave me open to a complaint from that driver where he/she may complain that I am accusing them of committing an offence without any firm evidence.
To get around this I reckon a form of declaration which is signed by the complainant would be sufficient and have this complaint recorded. If that driver was to get reported three times on three different occasions, could then be brought to court and convicted of dangerous driving or careless driving.

Del2005

TheNog wrote: »

First off Deadwood this is a great idea. Any concept to create an additional buffer or chance to keep honest decent people away from the courts should be considered. Fair play to ye for bringing it up

I would like to see a formal reporting concept brought in here for similar offences that have already been covered in the above posts.

There is also one offence I would especially like to see added to the list and that is dangerous driving. How many times have we got reports of a dangerous driver but no one willing to go to court but wish the driver to warned only?
Personally I have stopped warning a driver because I feel it may leave me open to a complaint from that driver where he/she may complain that I am accusing them of committing an offence without any firm evidence.
To get around this I reckon a form of declaration which is signed by the complainant would be sufficient and have this complaint recorded. If that driver was to get reported three times on three different occasions, could then be brought to court and convicted of dangerous driving or careless driving.

Thats a good idea, could also be used for noisey neighbours and the like. But would have to be from 3 unrelated people for fairness, if that would be possible to do.

deadwood

I remember a few years ago there was talk of dealing with Drunk Drivers in this manner too. This was shot down as it would deprive an alleged offender of a fair trial. (Not, as some might suggest, that it had anything to do with the the fact drunken driving is the most rigorously defended offence in the courts and some legal eagles might lose business).

No doubt, gardai would have poor drunks signing their lives away for a quick-fix detection.

Imagine the time this offence, alone, would save if it could be dealt with by fcps.

civdef

*Reg Plates
*Exhausts
etc etc

Is there any equivalent of VDRS in Ireland?

http://www.sussex.police.uk/infocentre/text_version/content.asp?uid=433

deadwood

civdef wrote: »

Is there any equivalent of VDRS in Ireland?

http://www.sussex.police.uk/infocentre/text_version/content.asp?uid=433

I remember we had these years ago. The follow up was a bit of a pain though, but now with PULSE, it could be checked in the same way Insurance and Driving Licence Production.

They were a good way to deal with tacky reg plates and those exhausts that would stimulate bowel movements after a night on the sauce.

ScubaDave

Deadwood - how do u check that on pulse!?

deadwood

ScubaDave wrote: »

Deadwood - how do u check that on pulse!?

I wasn't very clear.

With the old Vehicle Rectum Forms, you'd fill in name etc. and note the defects on a ticket, give this to the offender and he had 14 (i think) days to show the corrected defects at a Garda Station of his choice. The guard at the producing station would complete a "receipt" to show defects were corrected and send this to the issuing Garda - a bit of a rigmarole.


Perhaps now, if the offender produces his Glanza, with the chinese takeaway menu on the wings, to show his proper number plates (which he'll replace again later with the ones in the boot), the garda can create a DLIP type (DLIVRFP?) record on PULSE, so the issuing Garda can travel 20 miles to the District Headquarters to check it on PULSE instead of following a paper trail.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.:D

I hope I get commission for these brainwaves.

civdef

How about if it was administered through the NCT system, like in the UK? If the person doesn't address the issue and get it tested, they could then automatically receive a fixed penalty ala speeding with a few points for good measure.

The loud exhaust / tinted-windows-you-could-use-for-welding etc. crowd would feel the pinch.

deadwood

civdef wrote: »

How about if it was administered through the NCT system, like in the UK? If the person doesn't address the issue and get it tested, they could then automatically receive a fixed penalty ala speeding with a few points for good measure.

The loud exhaust / tinted-windows-you-could-use-for-welding etc. crowd would feel the pinch.

True. These guys will usually correct their modifications to pass the NCT and then fit the oven doors.

Some of the modifications can be changed in the NCT centre car park as soon as pizzaboy puts his disc into the imitation chrome holder under the "drive it like you stole it" sticker on the windscreen.

If he gets a second rectificamational notice about, say blue headlights, it'll show on the system and then he could be sommonsed and the judge will be aware he has been given the benefit of a notice before and chose to ignore it.
(He can be summonsed as things stand, but it's a bit like the light on the bike - essential but seen as petty action by AGS.)

A small fine on the spot for these offences and maybe points on receipt of a certain amount might be a better deterrent.

Don't get me wrong, in me experience, most modified car enthusiasts stay within the law and don't drink&drive (their mammies would kill them). I'm not on a campaign to stop people putting a list of car parts they can't afford on the side of the cars. It's kind of sweet - maybe it's a list for santy.

I think an awful lot of stuff could stay out of court and save everyone time and money.

TheNog

Oh the fog lights and how I hate them so much.

For people who are caught using their fog lights improperly should be reported say twice and a record kept of it on PULSE. On the third occasion a small fine say €50 on FCPS and 1 penalty point. Every time they are caught after the first time the fine goes up by €20.

Also penalty points for those inconsiderate people who park in the Disabled Bay.

deadwood

TheNog wrote: »

Also penalty points for those inconsiderate people who park in the Disabled Bay.

Yeah. Bloody wheelchair users getting all the best spots.:D

metman

As an aside, can you lads seize motors for no insurance? That's a crackin' power and really useful. In the Met only Traffic officers do this, while in the counties divisional officers can seize vehicles.

On topic....and still on the topic of insurance.... a ticket for no insurance giving 6 points on the license and a £200 fine is a handy tool too.

TheNog

metman wrote: »

As an aside, can you lads seize motors for no insurance? That's a crackin' power and really useful. In the Met only Traffic officers do this, while in the counties divisional officers can seize vehicles.

Yeah the car can be seized under Section 41 RTA 1994 for no insurance. There is a rigmoroll then for the driver/owner to get it insured before it is released with €125 for the 1st 24hrs and €35 for every day after that.

Why only divisional officers though? Seems really silly tbh cos I doubt they do much operational policing

metman wrote: »

On topic....and still on the topic of insurance.... a ticket for no insurance giving 6 points on the license and a £200 fine is a handy tool too.

That is handy alright but I'd be in favour of keeping the court appearance for this one. My judge gives €2,000 and 6 months off the road regardless of circumstances :D

metman

TheNog wrote: »

Yeah the car can be seized under Section 41 RTA 1994 for no insurance. There is a rigmoroll then for the driver/owner to get it insured before it is released with €125 for the 1st 24hrs and €35 for every day after that.

Why only divisional officers though? Seems really silly tbh cos I doubt they do much operational policing



That is handy alright but I'd be in favour of keeping the court appearance for this one. My judge gives €2,000 and 6 months off the road regardless of circumstances :D

A divisional officer here is a unit/local/response officer, just another name....they police a division etc...apologies....so in the MPS only Traffic can seize a car, whereas in the counties divisional officers can do it!

And 2000 euros sounds like a more realistic penalty lol. We can issue tickets for no insurance at our discretion, or we can summons or even arrest....which might lead to the 2000 euro scenario! Court is still an option but the ticket is a handy way to minimise paperwork for an all too common offence.

TheNog

yeah forgot to say we can arrest too.

Metman is it true that we cannot do checkpoints? or is it ye cannot stop a car without proper reason?

civdef

I'm going to pre-empt Metman, with the situation in another English force (about 5 years ago at least).

Routine checkpoints not done as a matter of policy- never really heard why, RIPA maybe? A constable can legally stop any car at any time for any reason though, it's just not done checkpoint fashion unless there's a specific goal, like an escaped prisoner maybe.

metman

TheNog wrote: »

yeah forgot to say we can arrest too.

Metman is it true that we cannot do checkpoints? or is it ye cannot stop a car without proper reason?

On the first issue; we don't do checkpoints ordinarily. They'll only be put in place after a serious incident or on a pre-planned op, i.e drink drive op.

Ordinarily officers can only set up a checkpoint in the event of a serious incident having taken place....pending authorisation from a senior officer, but it can be done on the spur of the moment by a PC under such circumstances. However, ordinarily we cannot just decide to setup a check-point as a routine matter.

As regards stopping vehicles, we can stop any vehicle at any time for the purpose of a document check. Also we have the power to stop and search any person, vehicle or person contained in said vehicle without grounds under the Terrorism Act. A very powerful piece of legislation. Persons who refuse to be searched can be searched using force.

metman

Spot on CD Had you added in the terrorism stuff my post would have been redundant!

civdef

Forgot that one, London coppers probably see anti-terrorism stuff than the county mounties, that said, the 7/7 bombs were built in my old division, so I suppose that's changed these days.

metman

Sadly terrorism is now a major issue for all forces nationwide. As a result regional CTUs (Counter Terrorist Units) have been set up and a lot of money is being invested into covert and overt CT policing.

eroo

Do Gardai have to have authorisation from a Superintendent to mount a checkpoint or can individual Gardai set one up for a specific reason?

TheNog

eroo wrote: »

Do Gardai have to have authorisation from a Superintendent to mount a checkpoint or can individual Gardai set one up for a specific reason?

We can do checkpoints whereever and whenever we want. The MAT checkpoints however require Super authorisation which specifically has the date, start time, end time and location

yayamark

TheNog wrote: »

We can do checkpoints whereever and whenever we want. The MAT checkpoints however require Super authorisation which specifically has the date, start time, end time and location

Is it not Inspsectors Nog?

metman

Yarp, its an Inspector here too but you can self-authorise in a clinch ......I mean when can you ever get a Super when you need one!

Eru

Our power to stop cars and perform checkpoints is in case law. It was found that the power to stop cars to prevent and detect crime covers checkpoints. Judges rules covers asking questions but you need Reasonable suspicion to search unless of course you ask and the driver allows you to.

The amendment to S41 is also fantastic as that mixed with S140 finance act and the above power covers all the bloody foreign cars driving around bypassing tax and insurance.

The only problem is they now keep selling cars to eachother then if they are stopped simple produce a reciept showing new ownership and more often than not the mule will let them go regardless of how old the tax is.

More mules should be checking foreign regs when they are stopped instead of doing it afterwards when its too late.

Our man in Havana

Are there any rules wrt the visibility/location of checkpoints? I have come across a few where the Gardaí were in what I would consider a dangerous location and not wearing hi-vis jackets etc?

deadwood

Bond-007 wrote: »

Are there any rules wrt the visibility/location of checkpoints? I have come across a few where the Gardaí were in what I would consider a dangerous location and not wearing hi-vis jackets etc?

That'd be one of those "why don't they ever do checkpoints on poor roads instead of shooting fish in a barrel" set-ups!:D

Our man in Havana

I didn't say that now.

deadwood

Bond-007 wrote: »

I have come across a few where the Gardaí were in what I would consider a dangerous location

Like Coppers on pay-day?

civdef

Health and safety concerns arise for anyone working on the road near traffic (note how much more formal and elaborate precautions around roadworks have gotten in recent times).

This is an issue emergency services are having to pay more heed of.

Our man in Havana

Indeed Civdef.

I have on occasion came round a corner to find a Garda standing in the middle of the road in standard non hi-vis uniform running a checkpoint. Dangerous in my opinion, hence my question.

deadwood

Bond-007 wrote: »

Indeed Civdef.

I have on occasion came round a corner to find a Garda standing in the middle of the road in standard non hi-vis uniform running a checkpoint. Dangerous in my opinion, hence my question.

The usual H&S rules apply. Signs, meprolights, high-viz etc should be used, but sometimes, this isn't practical.
I cringe when I see a guard wiggling a flashlight at traffic with no other safety measures taken. Not fair on the motorists either.

Our man in Havana

Agreed deadwood.

Victor

TheNog wrote: »

That is handy alright but I'd be in favour of keeping the court appearance for this one. My judge gives €2,000 and 6 months off the road regardless of circumstances :D

If you want the judge to change this, shift the emphasis in your evidence.

TheNog

Victor wrote: »

If you want the judge to change this, shift the emphasis in your evidence.

tried that in court last week with a careless driving summons. The young lad was a decent fella and seeing there was no injuries I was hoping the judge would go easy on him. I ended up with the judge chewing me out of it followed by the Super a few hours later and the I/C yesterday. :D

donvito99

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Our power to stop cars and perform checkpoints is in case law. It was found that the power to stop cars to prevent and detect crime covers checkpoints. Judges rules covers asking questions but you need Reasonable suspicion to search unless of course you ask and the driver allows you to.

The amendment to S41 is also fantastic as that mixed with S140 finance act and the above power covers all the bloody foreign cars driving around bypassing tax and insurance.

The only problem is they now keep selling cars to eachother then if they are stopped simple produce a reciept showing new ownership and more often than not the mule will let them go regardless of how old the tax is.

More mules should be checking foreign regs when they are stopped instead of doing it afterwards when its too late.

On Customs Martin Rogers stopped a car for having a northern reg and the driver having full residency in the republic. Does this ' S41/S140 ' have anything to do with this incident. The man could face an E18000 fine, have his car seized, and pay E2500 to get the car back.

Eru

donvito99 wrote: »

On Customs Martin Rogers stopped a car for having a northern reg and the driver having full residency in the republic. Does this ' S41/S140 ' have anything to do with this incident. The man could face an E18000 fine, have his car seized, and pay E2500 to get the car back.

Section 140 Finance Act was the one used by customs and Gardai for foreign cars.

And I have no sympathy for him, you pay VRT, tax, insurance and are accountable for your driving. For starters, Why shouldnt he? and secondly, ever tried claiming for a crash from a foreign insurance policy? Not a pleasant experience even when they have it.

Or put it another way, a lot of Irish cars are stolen and sold abroad, thats not a purely export business.