Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009

drunkmonkey

Should we be worried?, it includes such classics as including secret detention hearings and detention on the unsupported word of a single Guard.

I know why there trying to bringing it in but some of it seems very suspect, have they taken a leaf out of the CIA handbook on this one?

PirateShampoo

Uve nothing to worry about if ur a model citizen.

About time they started cracking down hard on the scum.

Executive Steve

Yes we should be extremely worried.

AnonoBoy

....awaits Run_To_Da_Hills.....

ejmaztec

AnonoBoy wrote: »

....awaits Run_To_Da_Hills.....

He may well have been secretly detained.:eek:

orestes

Big Brother loves you.

Chips Lovell

Isn't this the one drafted after the shooting of that rugby player in Limerick and is aimied at tackling organised crime?

AnonoBoy

ejmaztec wrote: »

He may well have been secretly detained.:eek:

And what better way to throw people off the scent than by pretending to be waiting for him........


........ muuuhhahaaaahaaaaaaaahhaawwaaahhaaaaaaa!!!!!


Might have just given it away there come to think of it.

*speaks into cuff* "Get me out of here"

Wertz

Great, more rules and laws but no extra bodies to enforce them or prisons to house the results.
The only worrying thing is the fact that Ahern is still in charge of the justice brief...

drunkmonkey

el tonto wrote: »

Isn't this the one drafted after the shooting of that rugby player in Limerick and is aimied at tackling organised crime?

No it's the one aimed at taking your civil rights away and detaining you on a hunch. 2 guys betting on frog jumping could be considerd orgnaised crime if they didn't have a gambling licence.

Run_to_da_hills

AnonoBoy wrote: »

....awaits Run_To_Da_Hills.....

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Should we be worried?, it includes such classics as including secret detention hearings and detention on the unsupported word of a single Guard.

I know why there trying to bringing it in but some of it seems very suspect, have they taken a leaf out of the CIA handbook on this one?

Links? :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Links? :rolleyes:

You managed to give em the slip then?

drunkmonkey

he's probably working for them now, be carefull what you say..

somebody check his bum and see is it ok.....

drunkmonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Links? :rolleyes:

PDF - Wearing a boiler suit or smoking a spiff is enough to see you go down : )

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4509/b4509d.pdf

My name is URL

drunkmonkey wrote: »

PDF - Wearing a boiler suit or smoking a spiff is enough to see you go down : )

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4509/b4509d.pdf

Was that not always the case? I don't think I've ever seen anyone walk around a town openly toking on a joint regardless of garda presence

Run_to_da_hills

My name is URL wrote: »

Was that not always the case? I don't think I've ever seen anyone walk around a town openly toking on a joint regardless of garda presence

You don't need to be toking or skinning up in front of a Garda Presence to be arrested. They can now watch you on sophisticated surveillance CCTV and follow it up. :eek:

drunkmonkey

My name is URL wrote: »

Was that not always the case? I don't think I've ever seen anyone walk around a town openly toking on a joint regardless of garda presence

can't say i've seen many lads in boiler suits either...

drunkmonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You don't need to be toking or skinning up in front of a Garda Presence to be arrested. They can now watch you on sophisticated surveillance CCTV and follow it up. :eek:

would you be safe if you've got your lad in your hand, surley they have to swith channels when they see any nudey bits...

AnonoBoy

Does anyone else think that if we could hear Run_to_da_Hills reading his posts aloud his voice would change from a little girls into a gruff Military voice halfway through?

"Sincerely,
Little Girl Run_to_da_Hills"

Iang87

great idea about time these pricks were targetted properly

ejmaztec

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Does anyone else think that if we could hear Run_to_da_Hills reading his posts aloud his voice would change from a little girls into a gruff Military voice halfway through?

"Sincerely,
Little Girl Run_to_da_Hills"

Only if they loosen the vice on his nuts.

Agamemnon

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They can now watch you on sophisticated surveillance CCTV and follow it up. :eek:

I'm not worried. I make a point of not skinning up in front of CCTV cameras anyway because when I wanna get high I get oh so shy.

It is disgraceful though - what will they do next, make hash illegal?! :mad:

Run_to_da_hills

The old expression "three is a crowd" can now be changed to "Three is a criminal gang" when this bill is passed.

Wertz

I suppose it's better than "Three is a terrorist sleeper cell"

Run_to_da_hills

Wertz wrote: »

I suppose it's better than "Three is a terrorist sleeper cell"

It will be ammended to this when the EU Parlament takes over.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Uve nothing to worry about if ur a model citizen.

And this piece of drivel will be the biggest load of bullsh!t you will ever here...

Crawl out of your hole and live a little will you? Your mind is distorted by the media etc etc...

RonMexico

Absolutely delighted and even more delighted to see that it pissed off The Irish Council for Civil Liberties. Bunch of twats.

Local-womanizer

It would make that much of a difference to the normal citizen.The Gardai are not going to waste their time pulling you up on every little thing you do wrong.

thelordofcheese

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It will be ammended to this when the EU Parlament takes over.

Jesus, even when we agree on stuff i still can't help but wish you'd just go away.

Also "no difference to the normal citizen", what a load of asinine bollocks.

peasant

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Should we be worried?, it includes such classics as including secret detention hearings and detention on the unsupported word of a single Guard.

I think we should be very worried ...McBrearty case, anyone?

Wertz

Yeah you're potentially well f*cked if a guard or group of guards take a personal dislike to you for some reason. At least when it was special criminal court for subversives, it was the word of a senior garda (super intendent?)...now any fresh faced rookie out of Templemore can convict you, in theory.

No-one is saying we don't have a substantial organised crime problem in this country but legislation like this is thin end of the wedge stuff...

Holsten

What are they changing?

Local-womanizer

A gaurd is not going to do something to jeapordise his carrer for a grudge.

Frank McBearty was no angel,that whole mess would have been avoided if the gardai had patience.They would have got their man if they went about it properly.

If you are innocent,you will be grand in court.The Gardai are not going to start dragging people to court over every little thing,they will be told to have cop on.

This bill will be used to go after those that everyone knows it was brought in for,the drug gangs.

If nothing was done to combat the scum gang members people would be giving out.When something is done,people give out.The Gardai are not going to turn into the Gestapo overnight ffs.

Chucky the tree

Local-womanizer wrote: »

A gaurd is not going to do something to jeapordise his carrer for a grudge.

Frank McBearty was no angel,that whole mess would have been avoided if the gardai had patience.They would have got their man if they went about it properly.

If you are innocent,you will be grand in court.The Gardai are not going to start dragging people to court over every little thing,they will be told to have cop on.

This bill will be used to go after those that everyone knows it was brought in for,the drug gangs.

If nothing was done to combat the scum gang members people would be giving out.When something is done,people give out.The Gardai are not going to turn into the Gestapo overnight ffs.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Relevant

Wertz wrote: »

now any fresh faced rookie out of Templemore can convict you, in theory.

I would say it will rely on the word of someone Superintendent or higher

Run_to_da_hills

Relevant wrote: »

I would say it will rely on the word of someone Superintendent or higher

according to reports, Any Garda.

Its will be mentioned in the 9.00 PM RTE news again.

Wertz

Relevant wrote: »

I would say it will rely on the word of someone Superintendent or higher

Amended bill wrote:

71B.—(1) In proceedings under this Part the
opinion of any member of the Garda Sı´ocha´na
who appears to the Court to possess the appropriate
expertise shall, subject to section 74B, be
admissible in evidence in relation to the issue as to
25 the existence of a particular criminal organisation.
(2) In subsection (1) ‘expertise’ means experience,
specialised knowledge or qualifications.

&

“Exclusion of
evidence in
certain
circumstances.
74B.—Nothing in this Part prevents a court, in
proceedings thereunder, from excluding evidence
that would otherwise be admissible if, in its
opinion, the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs
its probative value.”.

So it's open to interpretation IMO (which isn't the opinion of someone trained in law, mind)...technically you could only be a very junior ranking garda and hold specialist knowledge or training in an aspect that may have a bearing on a particular case...

local-womanizer wrote:

A gaurd is not going to do something to jeapordise his carrer for a grudge.

What if they thoiught they'd get away with it? The story of that female garda from Bray the other week shows that members of the force are not above telling porkies to get their own way, consequences or not. The McBrearty case also bears testament to that.

Whilst reading through some of the bill I also found the subsection on the right to slience...now if you refuse to answer questions during cautioned interview, it can be inferred by your non-responsiveness that you are probably guilty of that with which you are later charged, when used in conjunction with other evidence.

Amended Bill wrote:

72A.—(1) Where in any proceedings against a
person for an offence under this Part evidence is
given that the defendant at any time before he or
she was charged with the offence, on being questioned
by a member of the Garda Sı´ocha´na in
relation to the offence, failed to answer any question material to the investigation of the offence,
then the court in determining whether a charge
should be dismissed under Part IA of the Criminal
Procedure Act 1967 or whether there is a case to
answer and the court (or subject to the judge’s
directions, the jury) in determining whether the
defendant is guilty of the offence may draw such
inferences from the failure as appear proper; and
the failure may, on the basis of such inferences, be
treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence in relation to the offence,
but a person shall not be convicted of the offence
solely or mainly on an inference drawn from such
a failure.

A very slippery slope. The only saving grace is the bit at the end.

Prof.Badass

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Uve nothing to worry about if ur a model citizen.

About time they started cracking down hard on the scum.

Tell me, have you ever broken a law? I'd say 99% of the population have.
If there was a stupid law against something you wanted to do, would you honestly not engage in that behaviour even if you could get away with it?


There should always be clear limits on the power of the governemnt, and any sensible person would be cautious every time the government try to increase that power. Just because there's no dictator doesn't mean that power isn't being abused.

Guy:Incognito

vinylmesh wrote: »

Tell me, have you ever broken a law? I'd say 99% of the population have.

Yep, sure everyone caught speedign is goign to have the charge escalated to running a criminal gang and murder. The whole country will be locked up.

Seriousl, conspiracy people, can you not keep yourselves to your own looney bin forum ?

It's to tackle organised crime. I'm willing to put myself forward as a test subject for anyoen that can convince some eejit of a gard to try convict me on anything to do with organised crime.


Why exactly do people think there are hoards of Gardai sitting in stations waiting to be unleashed and frame random innocent people for major organised crime charges?

Prof.Badass

Stekelly wrote: »

Yep, sure everyone caught speedign is goign to have the charge escalated to running a criminal gang and murder. The whole country will be locked up.

Seriousl, conspiracy people, can you not keep yourselves to your own looney bin forum ?

It's to tackle organised crime. I'm willing to put myself forward as a test subject for anyoen that can convince some eejit of a gard to try convict me on anything to do with organised crime.


Why exactly do people think there are hoards of Gardai sitting in stations waiting to be unleashed and frame random innocent people for major organised crime charges?

No need to frame anyone, just give them unfair punishments for the crimes they have commited, some of which arguably shouldn't be crimes in the first place.

No, the gardai don't sit around wanting to lock people up.
Unfortunatley there's **** loads of idiots and biddies out there telling the government they need to get tough on x or clamp down on y and populist parties willing to take the easy way out to please them.

Without sparking debate by mentioning modern irish examples, i will point to certain arab countries today, and also to the fact that homosexual acts were illegal here in 1994.

Guy:Incognito

vinylmesh wrote: »

No need to frame anyone, just give them unfair punishments for the crimes they have been commited, some of which arguably shouldn't be crimes in the first place.

No, the gardai don't sit around wanting to lock people up.
Unfortunatley there's **** loads of idiots and biddies out there telling the government they need to get tough on x or clamp down on y and populist parties willing to take the easy way out to please them.
.

Old biddies can get as many organised crime bosses locked up as they like, more power to them imo.

But if you want to think some oul one giving out about you driving too fast on the road is going to lead to you being locked up in some sort of secret toture camp then thats your own issue. Just dont forget your tinfoil hat anyitme you go out in case THEY read your mind.

I seem to remember a while ago RTDH in one of his many threads proclaimed that we'd all be fined and locked up for swearing in public after ammendments to other laws. Anyone here have their charge sheets or torture evidence from the robocops that arrested everyone?

vinylmesh wrote: »

Without sparking debate by mentioning modern irish examples, i will point to certain arab countries today, and also to the fact that homosexual acts were illegal here in 1994.

Lots of things are and were illegal through never being taken off the books.. How many gay men were arrested in the 10 years say, up to 1994 for being gay or commiting homosexual acts?

Run_to_da_hills

Stekelly wrote: »

I seem to remember a while ago RTDH in one of his many threads proclaimed that we'd all be fined and locked up for swearing in public after ammendments to other laws.

That was to do with a zero tolerance swearing policy enforced by a UK city council.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055438258&highlight=swearing

Sulmac

Will blasphemy be covered? :pac:

Relevant

vinylmesh wrote: »

Unfortunatley there's **** loads of idiots and biddies out there telling the government they need to get tough on x or clamp down on y and populist parties willing to take the easy way out to please them.

This law is being brought in to combat the serious criminal element that intimidates witnesses and survives on the basis that nobody is willing to give evidence out of fear.

I was walking through Summerhill last Sunday and saw a car smashed to pieces with "rats out" written on it. This type of intimidation means the criminals can operate freely in the knowledge that nobody will "rat" on them for fear of retribution. The Gardai know who these people are and know they have committed shootings and intimidation but are unable to secure a conviction due to the lack of people willing to give evidences.

This bill takes away the one thing that was protecting these scumbags and now finally they will be held accountable for their actions.

Prof.Badass

Stekelly wrote: »

Old biddies can get as many organised crime bosses locked up as they like, more power to them imo.

And new laws only ever affect crime bosses right..........oh, and terrorists, don't forget those damn terrorists :pac:.

But if you want to think some oul one giving out about you driving too fast on the road is going to lead to you being locked up in some sort of secret toture camp then thats your own issue. Just dont forget your tinfoil hat anyitme you go out in case THEY read your mind.

I seem to remember a while ago RTDH in one of his many threads proclaimed that we'd all be fined and locked up for swearing in public after ammendments to other laws. Anyone here have their charge sheets or torture evidence from the robocops that arrested everyone?

Lots of things are and were illegal through never being taken off the books.. How many gay men were arrested in the 10 years say, up to 1994 for being gay or commiting homosexual acts?

I never said anything about torture camps and i'm not neccesarily talking about getting locked up either. The impression i get is that unless you're an obvious career criminal they try an avoid locking you up. Still, getting a criminal conviction is pretty **** tbh, and there's loads more ways they can punish you besides locking you up (fines ect.).

For example, if a pub was to regularly stay open past the ridiculously early time of 2.30 am they'd be shut down, regardless of anything else. The fact that the government try and control what time people stay out till is imo, an abuse of their powers.

magick

i completely support, if anything the bill doesnt go far enough

Relevant

vinylmesh wrote: »

And new laws only ever affect crime bosses right..........oh, and terrorists, don't forget those damn terrorists :pac:.

This is the criminal justice bill relating to the offences against the state act so in this instance the law is aimed at crime bosses. What is your point?

Raze_them_all

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Uve nothing to worry about if ur a model citizen.

About time they started cracking down hard on the scum.

Unless a copper doesn like you for a personal reason

Relevant

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Unless a copper doesn like you for a personal reason

He would still have to prove it to a Special Criminal Court Judge

Prof.Badass

Relevant wrote: »

This is the criminal justice bill relating to the offences against the state act so in this instance the law is aimed at crime bosses. What is your point?

My point is that often laws are aimed against the "big baddies" who everyone hates.
But just because it is aimed at say, crime bosses doesn't mean it'll only affect crime bosses.

People use all sorts of excuses to try and sneak in laws. For example i remember a group of MEPs tried to ban outdoor heaters along with the claim it was to fight global warming, when it was in fact a clear victimisation of smokers (lifelong non-smoker here) as there are hundreds of other devices that also use up loads of energy. Surely if people pay for electricity they should be allowed use it however they want. Banning one object at random does not seem like a good (or fair) way to fight global warming tbh.

Besides, I was commenting more on the general attitude of "if you're an upstanding citizen then it won't affect you" rather than the specifics of this ammendment (which i have yet not stated my opinion on, as i'd need to do more reading into it).

The exact line i used was ;

any sensible person would be cautious every time the government try to increase that power

.



A lot of the time controversial laws are scrapped, or else just never enacted to their full draconian potential. But if there wasn't some sort of backlash against them, who knows what certain politicians would bring in.

In All Fairness

Relevant wrote: »

This is the criminal justice bill relating to the offences against the state act so in this instance the law is aimed at crime bosses. What is your point?

I think the point is that they might miss and hit somebody else.