Very Angry About The Police And Judiciary.

IT Loser

Close friend of mine was detained and questioned, then insulted, by Gardia Siochana in Templebar in Summer of 2007.

He had politely, and without any trouble, attempted to gain access to the toilet facilities of a Chinese Restaurant in temple bar. He was not turned away, or asked to leave, but simply gave up when the futility of his task {place was packed} was noted. Nobody in the Chinese made a complaint against him.

Subsequently, he took a leak in the street, in what he described as a sort of a cul de sac. He does not deny doing this, and never attempted to so deny it, in any way shape or form.

He was surprised by two Gardai, a male and a female.

Both of them proceded to verbally abuse him, calling him a "stupid f*cking bastard" {maybe it was Twink} and told him was he not ashamed to be "pissing all over his shoes".

My friend had drink taken, of course {4am in town} and explained he had tried to relieve himself in a less public fashion.

The Guards demanded to see ID, including his bank card. They then told him that he would be hearing from them.

A Summons was eventually served.

On the day in Court, the Guards in question did not show up. I repeat- they did not show up. My friend, who cannot afford legal advice, had gone up the Courts a few days before and asked a barrister chap for help. The barrister suggested he throw a few quid the courts way via the poor box.

When the day came, as I said, the Police did not show up. My friend, unaware of the significance of this, offered to make a contribution to the poor box. The judge flew into a rage and demanded to know where he had "heard about this"....My friend explained, because the poor box is such a f*cking mystery, as you know, and the Justice, who had heard no evidence from any police as to the events of the night in question, told my friend to pay €390+ to St James Hospital, insulted him a few more times, and then told him to "clear off out".

The Justice refused to hear any opinion as to why my friend, who has no record, and had no record, was not offered the opportunity of a Public Caution. His Sarge refused to help when I rang them before the hearing.

This all happened back in March.

The vulgarity of the situation has made itself clear to me over the last few months and I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on any aspect of it. I am not considering legal action, just want to know how you all feel about it.

If any of you doubt the veracity of this, I can name names, via PM, of the judge and Gardai in question.

Ta.

McCrack

Well two things..

1) it's what you mate told you i.e his version of events (and in turn you are relaying it in your words on this forum)

2) if the prosecuting Garda doesnt show it either put back or thrown out, the Judge simply won't proceed.

So there are porkies somewhere.

IT Loser

McCrack wrote: »

Well two things..

1) it's what you mate told you i.e his version of events (and in turn you are relaying it in your words on this forum)

2) if the prosecuting Garda doesnt show it either put back or thrown out, the Judge simply won't proceed.

So there are porkies somewhere.

You bet there are. I have documentary evidence that the proceeding was held up at Court 53 in March.

The justice told my friend to pay €390+ to St James hospital.

My friend was NOT represented in Court.

The officer in question DID NOT appear on the morning in question. I suspect he did not appear as I rang Pierse Street and spoke to the Guard in question, who said he could not remember the events of the night in question. I rang him before the Court hearing. He also said he "might" have not given my friend a Public Caution as my friend "Might" have said "something smart".

Anyways, this copper did not show up in Court and his sarge went MAD at ME for speaking to him.

Christ, the Guard actually RANG ME after I rang Pierse and left a message.

Then, with me having probed his version of events, and found them wanting, the guy is a no-show in Court.

Does the judge f*ck it out? Does he sh!te. He goes mad at my pal, who knows nought and was unwaged and unrepresented at the time, and tells my bud to pay €390+ to St James.

Lo and behold, my pal goes up to Richmond Courts to show them the RECEIPT from his having paid St James and who does he see being bullied and terrified by Roma gypsies????

....none other than the same Guard in question.

No public caution, no corroboration in Court, total abdication of judicial duties....beautiful. Not.

I KID THEE NOT on any of this.

McCrack

You must be a very good friend.

No in practice what you have described doesn't happen, specifically regarding the second point I made re the Garda no show.

You have your wires crossed I'm afraid.

Hooch

Is this a rant to get it off your chest or do you have something to ask??

*not being funny*

IT Loser

McCrack wrote: »

You must be a very good friend.

No in practice what you have described doesn't happen, specifically regarding the second point I made re the Garda no show.

You have your wires crossed I'm afraid.

I am telling the truth. My father was there. The friend is my brother.

The next time a suggestion is made that I am lying, I will name the judge and policeman.

IT Loser

nice guy always wrote: »

Is this a rant to get it off your chest or do you have something to ask??

*not being funny*

Actually, I was wondering if anyone thought there might be a serial or a biopic in it. I was hawking the rights. You can contact me in the Law Courts, look for Shyster&Bullsh!ter. Thats me in the fedora and my partner in the yarmulka.

McCrack

Naming anybody doesnt prove anything.

I dont know your motives here but what you have described is far-fetched.

A Judge can't proceed on a summery matter without the prosecutor being present. That's the nuts and bolts of of it.

davidoco

two tips.

1. Dont carry id. Mr murphy.
2. Dont stand up in court until your prosecutor identifies himself. Judge fined him for being so stupid on that one.

IT Loser

McCrack wrote: »

Naming anybody doesnt prove anything.

I dont know your motives here but on what you have described is far-fetched.

A Judge can't proceed on a summery matter without the prosecutor being present. That's the nuts and bolts of of it.

He did not proceed in a legal fashion, he proceded in an arbitrary personal fashion, demanding to know where my brother had heard about "the poor box" and then demanding him to pay in excess of €390 to St James Hospital, irrespective of the fact that my brother received no criminal sanction under the CJA PO Act {Section 5, I believe}

He was charged with a public order offence.

He was not convicted.

He was not fined.

No record was made or kept.

Yet the justice demanded to know whereof my bro had heard of the "poor box" and then took €400~ off an unwaged member of society.

IT Loser

davidoco wrote: »

two tips.

1. Dont carry id. Mr murphy.
2. Dont stand up in court until your prosecutor identifies himself. Judge fined him for being so stupid on that one.

He owns a nondescript automobile, or did, before he lost €400, and was thus in the habit of carrying, as is his legal right, a drivers licence.

As for being fined for being "stupid", all I have to say about that is thanks for your time and the very best of luck to you. You wouldnt be one of those Barristers who were playing at the back of the Court, by any chance?

And the name is not Murphy.

seamus

Coming from someone who doesn't know how court proceedings work nor has ever been in court to see them work:

If the accused stands up and effectively admits to the offence (as this guy's brother did), does there even need to be a prosecutor/witness present to proceed with the charge?

On an aside, a judge telling someone what he thinks of them might be insulting, but it's often very valid and I really don't see a problem with it. The old court poor box trick is effectively a way of trying to weasle out of court with the minimum sentence possible - the judge might be sick of people not standing up and taking their punishment.

Micky Dolenz

nice guy always wrote: »

Is this a rant to get it off your chest or do you have something to ask??

*not being funny*

Not being funny, but try reading the whole story.

IT Loser wrote: »

The vulgarity of the situation has made itself clear to me over the last few months and I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on any aspect of it. I am not considering legal action, just want to know how you all feel about it.



Ta.

davidoco

eventually you ll get replies that agree with you. i think justice was done.

IT Loser

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Not being funny, but try reading the whole story.

Well done to you Sir. I think some of these people around here are too prone to dismiss everyone as a WUM or Liar.

Much like the maligned Benvolio, I do but keep the peace.

What I have illustrated above is the Gods honest truth.

IT Loser

davidoco wrote: »

eventually you ll get replies that agree with you. i think justice was done.

Your reply is agreeable. I asked people for what they thought and thats all.

If you think that Gardai sending their buddies into court with their notes is proper order, then fine, really.

Micky Dolenz

My advice, Learn, move on and don't pee on the street.

IT Loser

seamus wrote: »

Coming from someone who doesn't know how court proceedings work nor has ever been in court to see them work:

If the accused stands up and effectively admits to the offence (as this guy's brother did), does there even need to be a prosecutor/witness present to proceed with the charge?

On an aside, a judge telling someone what he thinks of them might be insulting, but it's often very valid and I really don't see a problem with it. The old court poor box trick is effectively a way of trying to weasle out of court with the minimum sentence possible - the judge might be sick of people not standing up and taking their punishment.

My brother did not admit explicity to the offence in court In fact, he was not actually asked for his version of events.

They did not get around to discussing the offence.

They did not get around to admitting the offence as the Guard who stopped my brother on the night in question was absent.

Whitewater-AGS

Theres to many holes in this tall tale to even start!:rolleyes:

IT Loser

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

My advice, Learn, move on and don't pee on the street.

Thats sound advice.

But we are all entitled to the proper procedure too.

Once the Guard in question, who I am this close to naming, did not show up, that should have been that.

Case gets tossed.

But thats not what happened.

Hence I petitioned opinion.

Micky Dolenz

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

Theres to many holes in this tall tale to even start!:rolleyes:

is that all you have to say on the matter? care to expand. I really hate that smiley :rolleyes:, it's so condescending.

IT Loser

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

Theres to many holes in this tall tale to even start!:rolleyes:

Please indulge me, I will plug your gaps for you as you see fit. Where would you like to start? Hit me......

Micky Dolenz

IT Loser wrote: »

Thats sound advice.

But we are all entitled to the proper procedure too.

Once the Guard in question, who I am this close to naming, did not show up, that should have been that.

Case gets tossed.

But thats not what happened.

Hence I petitioned opinion.

why didn't ye appeal it then?

IT Loser

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

why didn't ye appeal it then?

You already partially answered that Micky!!

The vulgarity of the entire situation has really only come back to me upon, as Brian Lenihan Sr. used to say, "Upon Mature Recollection"

At the time, my brother was being considered for employment in a large multinational firm, a US firm, and was worried sick that this might act against him.

He borrowed the cash to pay the fine, got the job, and we were all so relieved we let it slide. He was also considering emigration at the time, and was terrified of being denied entry, on any ground.

As I say, I look back on the entire thing now as a revolting chapter and thought I would seek the opinion of others.

EL_Loco

middle class boy acts like scummer, middle class boy gets treated like scummer.

Take it like a man and stop with the knobbery.

IT Loser

EL_Loco wrote: »

middle class boy acts like scummer, middle class boy gets treated like scummer.

Take it like a man and stop with the knobbery.

Actually its "Unemployed lad gets legal representation of the Unemployed, gets treated like a Scummer".

He asked left and right for legal assistance.

FLAC said on 3 occassions they would help him but never got back to him on each occassion- before or after the fact.

Micky Dolenz

EL_Loco wrote: »

middle class boy acts like scummer, middle class boy gets treated like scummer.

Take it like a man and stop with the knobbery.

Guessing you've never been in court, scummers never get big fines, they wouldn't pay them.

I think OP has a geniune gripe, he feels he got a raw deal.
OP, it's annoying, but it's done and no body got killed. Laws were broken, brother got punished. It's no biggie, is it?

Now if he was locked up for a few years for a crime he didn't commit you would probably get more sympathy.

IT Loser

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Guessing you've never been in court, scummers never get big fines, they wouldn't pay them.

I think OP has a geniune gripe, he feels he got a raw deal.
OP, it's annoying, but it's done and no body got killed. Laws were broken, brother got punished. It's no biggie, is it?

Now if he was locked up for a few years for a crime he didn't commit you would probably get more sympathy.

Oh absolutely, I mean, I basically said as much above- part of the reason we let it slide afterwards was because we just wanted to get back on with things.

Over time, however, the matter precipitated in my mind. As I gather a better picture of how the legal system works, the more I saw how much of a raw deal it was.

The Guard in question was utterly utterly incompetent. He did not even know he was not supposed to speak to me about the case. I rang Pierse and said I was a family relative, I asked him to explain himself and what does he do? He tries to talk his way out of it.

He didnt know who I was from Adam.

The reason I rang him was because the Guard who served the summons said it was up to us to contact the Gardai in Pierse and demand to know why the offer of a Public Caution had never been made.

The serving officer also suggested that it would not be a bad idea to speak to the mans Sarge and see what could be done.

In the event, nothing was done. Sarge had a look at the case and said it was going to court, end of.

Fine, said I.

Went to Court......the pertinent officer was a no-show.

dermot_sheehan

A few comments:

He was peeing in a public street. This is criminalised by section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 as a breach of the peace.

I don't suppose you're arguing it should be legal for someone to pee in a public street, 4 am on a saturday or not.

If he was summonsed and there was no appearance by the prosecutor, he could have asked for a strike out. Instead he asked for section 1(1) of the probation act 1908 which was where the judge although satisfied that the offence was proved declines to convict.

By asking for it he was in effect pleading guilty.

€390 fine is a normal penalty for someone urinating in a public street who wants to avoid a conviction, unwaged or not. Most judges take the view that if you can afford to get drunk, you can afford to pay for the consequences.

He can still appeal, although the time limit for appeal as passed, he can apply to the district court for an extension of time to appeal to the circuit court. Whether to do so is a wise course of action is another question.

Legal aid is only available to those who meet the income requirements and are in jeopardy of going to prison. Your brother was never in jeopardy of going to prison for a first time section 6 conviction. The resources aren't there to provide legal assistance to every person contesting public order or road traffic charges.

I really don't see what your gripe is. The garda was under no obligation to speak to yourself or your brother whatsoever. The gardai were perfectly entitled to tell him what they thought of his conduct and demand his identification. They even had the option of arresting him and him spending a night in the cells and he's lucky that did not occur. He decided to plead guilty instead of waiting and seeing if the prosecutor appeared for his court case. You (unless a solicitor or barrister) had no right to speak for him.

Unless you seriously are arguing that peeing in the street should be legal, it sounds like the police and legal system did appropriatley with your brother and its unlikely that he will reoffend.

IT Loser

gabhain7 wrote: »

A few comments:

He was peeing in a public street. This is criminalised by section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 as a breach of the peace.

I don't suppose you're arguing it should be legal for someone to pee in a public street, 4 am on a saturday or not.

If he was summonsed and there was no appearance by the prosecutor, he could have asked for a strike out. Instead he asked for section 1(1) of the probation act 1908 which was where the judge although satisfied that the offence was proved declines to convict.

By asking for it he was in effect pleading guilty.

€390 fine is a normal penalty for someone urinating in a public street who wants to avoid a conviction, unwaged or not. Most judges take the view that if you can afford to get drunk, you can afford to pay for the consequences.

He can still appeal, although the time limit for appeal as passed, he can apply to the district court for an extension of time to appeal to the circuit court. Whether to do so is a wise course of action is another question.

Legal aid is only available to those who meet the income requirements and are in jeopardy of going to prison. Your brother was never in jeopardy of going to prison for a first time section 6 conviction. The resources aren't there to provide legal assistance to every person contesting public order or road traffic charges.

I really don't see what your gripe is. The garda was under no obligation to speak to yourself or your brother whatsoever. The gardai were perfectly entitled to tell him what they thought of his conduct and demand his identification. They even had the option of arresting him and him spending a night in the cells and he's lucky that did not occur. He decided to plead guilty instead of waiting and seeing if the prosecutor appeared for his court case. You (unless a solicitor or barrister) had no right to speak for him.

Unless you seriously are arguing that peeing in the street should be legal, it sounds like the police and legal system did appropriatley with your brother and its unlikely that he will reoffend.

He wasnt drunk. First off. You jump to your own conclusions boss. Okay?

Neither I, nor he, attempt to argue the virtues of public urination, public childbirth, public vomiting, public coughing, sneezing etc.

The thread is not about that. Nobody here, me included, attempted to make an argument for that kind of bad behaviour. So, why inject that into the discussion??

I can speak on my brothers behalf if I so choose. You are perfectly wrong on that score. Furhtermore, I made no attempt, as it happens, to speak to the Court on my brothers behalf. Nobody spoke on my brothers behalf, except my brother.

I spoke to the Guard, and I only spoke to the Guard after the fact but before the court date, and only at the behest of another Guard.

My brother did not receive the probation act. No siree. And not a mention of it either.

The Guard was correct to ask for ID. Upon being furnished with a valid Drivers License, he then asked for a bank card. Unacceptable. My "drunk" brother showed no lack of dexterity in producing this piece of ID either. The Guard then refused to furnish his own ID in a fashion that could be easily read, instead, preferring to hold it at hip height, snapping it open and then closed. Fact. My brother asked the Guard to provide ID. Fact.

I never said my brother was entitled to legal aid. I said he contacted FLAC {Free Legal...wait for it.....A-D-V-I-C-E} they would have, if they returned his calls, have put him in touch with the pertinent people. As it happens, I told him to ring a well established law firm in the D7 area {names upon request, for sure} who then told him to take himself down to the Courts and speak to the first Barrister he laid eyes on. The Gods Honest. The Barrister he spoke to suggested he mention the poor box. And so it went.

We never said we were entitled to legal aid, food aid, band aid, live aid or any other sort of aid.

As it happens, I think the case came up under S5 of the PO act. Not S6.

Answering your question as to what my gripe is: I think its best I put it like this: I am of the firm belief, that the conversation I had with the prosecuting {mr no-show himself} Guard very much put him off the notion of showing up in Court. He had been put on notice that his behaviour had been deemed {on our side} as unacceptable, that his version of events was being challenged {including the location named in the Summons as being the location of the offence} He was put on notice that his failure to offer a caution to an individual with a clean record was due to be challenged.

In the end, lo and behold, the lad does not show. Instead, someone else did. My understanding of it was that once the Guard in question does not show, the Court must toss the case out.

dermot_sheehan

IT Loser wrote: »

He wasnt drunk. First off. You jump to your own conclusions boss. Okay?

Neither I, nor he, attempt to argue the virtues of public urination, public childbirth, public vomiting, public coughing, sneezing etc.

The thread is not about that. Nobody here, me included, attempted to make an argument for that kind of bad behaviour. So, why inject that into the discussion??

I assumed he was drunk as it was 4am on a saturday and he was pissing in the street. If he wasn't the drunk, that's even less mitigating, what type of excuse does he have for his behavior then.

And you seem to be saying he should not have been punished at all, I was wondering do you think a sober person pissing in the street should be punished.

I can speak on my brothers behalf if I so choose. You are perfectly wrong on that score. Furhtermore, I made no attempt, as it happens, to speak to the Court on my brothers behalf. Nobody spoke on my brothers behalf, except my brother.

You have no right to without leave of the court. Look at Order 6 of the District Court rules if you doubt me.

I spoke to the Guard, and I only spoke to the Guard after the fact but before the court date, and only at the behest of another Guard.

My brother did not receive the probation act. No siree. And not a mention of it either.

If he was required to make a poor box contribution he got the probation act. If you doubt me, write to the district court office and get a record of the case and it will indicate that fact.

The Guard was correct to ask for ID. Upon being furnished with a valid Drivers License, he then asked for a bank card. Unacceptable. My "drunk" brother showed no lack of dexterity in producing this piece of ID either. The Guard then refused to furnish his own ID in a fashion that could be easily read, instead, preferring to hold it at hip height, snapping it open and then closed. Fact. My brother asked the Guard to provide ID. Fact.

The garda could have arrested your brother but decided to summons him upon being satisfied as to his ID. The irish driving licence is easy enough to fake, the garda was perfectly entitled to ask for further proof or indeed to decide simply to arrest your brother. A garda in uniform is not required to produce ID.

I never said my brother was entitled to legal aid. I said he contacted FLAC {Free Legal...wait for it.....A-D-V-I-C-E} they would have, if they returned his calls, have put him in touch with the pertinent people. As it happens, I told him to ring a well established law firm in the D7 area {names upon request, for sure} who then told him to take himself down to the Courts and speak to the first Barrister he laid eyes on. The Gods Honest. The Barrister he spoke to suggested he mention the poor box. And so it went.

We never said we were entitled to legal aid, food aid, band aid, live aid or any other sort of aid.

As it happens, I think the case came up under S5 of the PO act. Not S6.

I know what FLAC is. I volunteer for them in fact. Who should FLAC have put him in contact with? We would not have represented him in court on a public order charge. We can not recommend firms of solicitors as to do so would make it appear that we are touting for business for certain firms.

The advice he got re: poor box was correct. If he wanted to avoid a conviction, and he was pissing in the street, that was the way to go. He maybe should have made sure the prosecuting garda was there first.


I suppose pissing in public would be more disorderly conduct then breach of the peace, so it would be section 5. Don't think it makes much differance to what I said though.

The garda had an option to administer an adult caution or summons. He chose to summons, that was his decision to make. If the prosecuting member was not there another member would have asked for the case to be adjourned. Whether the adjournment is granted or not is at the discretion of the judge but normally the state is afforded at least one adjournment.

Wantobe

You say that it was made clear to the guard that the offence was to be challenged. But in fact, from what you have said, in court your brother didn't challenge it at all. Instead he asked for a particular sentence. That in itself is a big no-no- you don't tell the judge what verdict to give! But in asking for that sentence he was, in effect, pleading guilty. If there is a plea of guilty, there is no need for evidence to be given. Another poster has already told you this, but you chose to ignore it.

I have read your posts and really don't understand the gripe- your brother was wrong, he was caught, he didn't even get a conviction, just had to pay over a donation- so what's the big deal?

IT Loser

gabhain7 wrote: »

I assumed he was drunk as it was 4am on a saturday and he was pissing in the street. If he wasn't the drunk, that's even less mitigating, what type of excuse does he have for his behavior then.

And you seem to be saying he should not have been punished at all, I was wondering do you think a sober person pissing in the street should be punished.

Where did you get 4AM Saturday from? The "excuse", for thats what it is, has already been provided: he needed to relieve himself, had attempted to do lawfully, and failed in that attempt. Nephrotic embolisms aside, public urination was his next best bet. I never tried to play it down, he never tried to play it down, so once again, your multiple assumptions remain your own work.

Gabhain wrote:

You have no right to without leave of the court. Look at Order 6 of the District Court rules if you doubt me.

The Court would have granted leave had it so been asked. We both regard this as the practical norm.

Gabhain wrote:

If he was required to make a poor box contribution he got the probation act. If you doubt me, write to the district court office and get a record of the case and it will indicate that fact.

Hey, thats great. No problem, we will. Question: why did the Justice not explain this at the time {if in fact it is the case, and I have MY doubts}. He was not "required" to make a contribution, he offered {out of pure ignorance of procedure and comportment} to make one, causing the Justice to robustly question him on the matter of the poor box, before ordering him to pay €390+.

Gabhain wrote:

The garda could have arrested your brother but decided to summons him upon being satisfied as to his ID. The irish driving licence is easy enough to fake, the garda was perfectly entitled to ask for further proof or indeed to decide simply to arrest your brother. A garda in uniform is not required to produce ID.

If the Gardai do not have sufficient confidence in official State documents, then from here on in I will drive without my licence on me. Sure when did having a bank card prove anything??? A lad with fake papers is likely to have fake plastic. The policeman was being the proverbial Charlie Uncle Nova Delta. Lets not pretend, shall we?

Gabhain wrote:

I know what FLAC is. I volunteer for them in fact. Who should FLAC have put him in contact with? We would not have represented him in court on a public order charge. We can not recommend firms of solicitors as to do so would make it appear that we are touting for business for certain firms.

They didnt have to put him in contact WITH ANYONE. They were NOT ASKED to put him in contact with ANYONE. He rang and asked for advice and got...silence. Thrice. I understand the position of FLAC {and its good of you to help} and seeing as I do not have a beef with FLAC {who are basically tangential to the case} I wont go on about it. He did not want them to pick out a lawyer for him, he just wanted some help.

Gabhain wrote:

The advice he got re: poor box was correct. If he wanted to avoid a conviction, and he was pissing in the street, that was the way to go. He maybe should have made sure the prosecuting garda was there first.

The Barrister in Richmond was helpful. I have no beef with him. Unfortunately, as you are aware, most well behaved people with generally good intentions dont know the ropes. They dont know to look out for prosecuting Guard. Thats where FLAC should have come in. You know, advising him and all that.

GABHAIN wrote:

I suppose pissing in public would be more disorderly conduct then breach of the peace, so it would be section 5. Don't think it makes much differance to what I said though.

I was just pointing out that you quoted the wrong substantive law, and that the penalties do differ. Thats all.

Gabhain wrote:

The garda had an option to administer an adult caution or summons. He chose to summons, that was his decision to make. If the prosecuting member was not there another member would have asked for the case to be adjourned. Whether the adjournment is granted or not is at the discretion of the judge but normally the state is afforded at least one adjournment.

His decision was wrong. The "other member" did not make the pertinent request to adjourn. I repeat: he did not make the request to adjourn.

IT Loser

Wantobe wrote: »

You say that it was made clear to the guard that the offence was to be challenged. But in fact, from what you have said, in court your brother didn't challenge it at all. Instead he asked for a particular sentence. That in itself is a big no-no- you don't tell the judge what verdict to give! But in asking for that sentence he was, in effect, pleading guilty. If there is a plea of guilty, there is no need for evidence to be given. Another poster has already told you this, but you chose to ignore it.

I have read your posts and really don't understand the gripe- your brother was wrong, he was caught, he didn't even get a conviction, just had to pay over a donation- so what's the big deal?

I said the Guards versions of events would be challenged.

I said the Guards behaviour would be reported and challenged.

I said the factual inaccuracies of the written served summons would be challenged.

The Police did not stand up and offer a verbal description of the offence they were alleging.

They merely stood up and said why they were there, that so-and-so could not make it.

Justice then turns to my brother, who bearing in mind the words of the barrister, says, out of desperation "Poor Box".

Its the absence of the prosecuting guard, and the subsequent reaction of the Judge to the words "poor box" {inter alia} that invoke my ire.

Dawgslife

Typical moaner. Your "friend" was out drinking and showing no respect for anyone else. No one wants to look at him urinating in a public street. He was caught be two vigiliant Gardai doing their job. He ended up in court and was fined, which is exactly what he deserved!!!. While your banging on about naming people why don't you name your honourable friend who thinks it's acceptable to urinate in public. No, instead you'll bang on about how the Gardai/Justice System/Judge is wrong. If your friend had any self respect he/you wouldn't find yourself in the position of having to deal with them.

Grow up and accept that your brother was wrong and got exactly what he deserved.

Exon

I believe the OP and i've seen worse.

The OP is most probably telling the full truth as I've personal seen alot worse than this.

I've been in court 100's of times and I know the law don't want to say why though.

He should've just been told to **** off on the night or at most a caution - And that gob****e that summonced him is a shame to AGS.

Exon

Did he just shout out of the blue at the judge the two words "Poor box!" if he did LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

No wonder he ate him out of it, that's the funniest thing i've ever heard.

The funniest think I seen was some gob****e was called and he was seated at the back - so he start stepping over all the sites right up trough the middle of everyone. Even the judge broke his ****e laughing.

IT Loser

Dawgslife wrote: »

Typical moaner. Your "friend" was out drinking and showing no respect for anyone else. No one wants to look at him urinating in a public street. He was caught be two vigiliant Gardai doing their job. He ended up in court and was fined, which is exactly what he deserved!!!. While your banging on about naming people why don't you name your honourable friend who thinks it's acceptable to urinate in public. No, instead you'll bang on about how the Gardai/Justice System/Judge is wrong. If your friend had any self respect he/you wouldn't find yourself in the position of having to deal with them.

Grow up and accept that your brother was wrong and got exactly what he deserved.

FALSE.

There is no need for falsehoods. I have told the truth right the whole way along.

Never mentioned the Justice System either. I referred specifically to a specific instance involving the Judiciary and the Police, who are but organs of the Justice System, and do not alone comprise it.

I never threatened to "name" anyone. I merely offered to name them as I felt I was being called a liar, by way of offering proof and substance to my claims.

Have a nice day.

Dawgslife

I never threatened to "name" anyone. I merely offered to name them

Good one!.

How can you claim to be stating the facts of what occured. Perhaps I'm missing something, did you observe the incident and conversation between your brother and the Gardai or are you taking the word of someone who was urinating on the street with alcohol consumed.

Your brother was wrong and got what he deserved. Stop trying to find fault with everyone else and accept that if you break the law you should be brought before a judge and punished. Which is exactly what happened!!. The Gardai did their job. The Judge did his (or her) job. The law breaker was punished. Get over it!!!.

IT Loser

Dawgslife wrote: »

I never threatened to "name" anyone. I merely offered to name them

Good one!.

How can you claim to be stating the facts of what occured. Perhaps I'm missing something, did you observe the incident and conversation between your brother and the Gardai or are you taking the word of someone who was urinating on the street with alcohol consumed.

Your brother was wrong and got what he deserved. Stop trying to find fault with everyone else and accept that if you break the law you should be brought before a judge and punished. Which is exactly what happened!!. The Gardai did their job. The Judge did his (or her) job. The law breaker was punished. Get over it!!!.

Spot the Guard!!!

I am referring to the facts of the COURT procedure.

Yes, you are missing a lot. And will be missing a lot more in due course.

Oooh! So and so had "alcohol taken". Oh well they must be wrong so.

Dawgslife

Of course he was wrong he was urinating in public. How could he not be wrong???.

IT Loser

Dawgslife wrote: »

Of course he was wrong he was urinating in public. How could he not be wrong???.

You said he believed it was acceptable. That is manifestly false.

Dawgslife

Who said he believed it was acceptable????

IT Loser

Dawgslife wrote: »

Who said he believed it was acceptable????

You said my brother believed it was acceptable. #35

McCrack

IT Loser wrote: »

Spot the Guard!!!

I am referring to the facts of the COURT procedure.

Yes, you are missing a lot. And will be missing a lot more in due course.

Oooh! So and so had "alcohol taken". Oh well they must be wrong so.

The "facts" as stated by you have been shown to be Walter Mitty and incorrect yet you continue on with the offensive.

A troll springs to mind.

IT Loser

McCrack wrote: »

The "facts" as stated by you have been shown to be Walter Mitty and incorrect yet you continue on with the offensive.

A troll springs to mind.

Nope, the most you can show to be incorrect, on your construction, is my interpretation of the law, or interpretation of the facts, or both.

But you cannot, under any circumstances, show my facts to be, as you put it, troll-like, "Walter Mitty".

What happened, happened, and it happened as I am telling it.

My interpretation of them, is, of course, my own and nobody elses.

If anyone is trolling it is you.

I can verify and identify the case at hand, by naming the parties involved and providing other data. As such, you have no case to allege "trolling".

So make like poor old Mickey Jackson and beat it, beat it,all you have to do is beat it. Cracker.

McCrack

No I can and I have.

Any reasonable person reading your posts would come to the same conclusion I have.

Like I said earlier naming people's names proves nothing...actually another poster did wonder whether you would name your own piss-about-town brother seeing as you have offered to name the prosecuting Garda and Judge.

That would be interesting. I might know him.

IT Loser

McCrack wrote: »

No I can and I have.

Any reasonable person reading your posts would come to the same conclusion I have.

Like I said earlier naming people's names proves nothing...actually another poster did wonder whether you would name your own piss-about-town brother seeing as you have offered to name the prosecuting Garda and Judge.

That would be interesting. I might know him.

Why? Who are you?:D:D:D

What are you? A trainee law student? Applying "Reasonable Men" tests like a kid in a tort exam thats running out of time, and running out of stuff to write in it???:D

I wont name my brother. Why would I?

Maybe I will name the piss-about-town-cop and his piss-about-town-partner...and then I'll name the piss-about-town-judge and you can go and fill in the gaps, like a good little intern.

McCrack...errs.

McCrack

IT Loser wrote: »

Why? Who are you?:D:D:D

What are you? A trainee law student? Applying "Reasonable Men" tests like a kid in a tort exam thats running out of time, and running out of stuff to write in it???:D

I wont name my brother. Why would I?

Maybe I will name the piss-about-town-cop and his piss-about-town-partner...and then I'll name the piss-about-town-judge and you can go and fill in the gaps, like a good little intern.

McCrack...errs.

I told you about this earlier, here's the link:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=994

I'd say you will do a good job there.

IT Loser

McCrack wrote: »

I told you about this earlier, here's the link:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=994

I'd say you will do a good job there.

Dont tell. Ask. Its rude to tell, as I told you already.

Jev/N

IT Loser wrote: »

What are you? A trainee law student? Applying "Reasonable Men" tests like a kid in a tort exam thats running out of time, and running out of stuff to write in it???:D

If you're so au fait with the law then why didn't you assist and advise your dear brother when you claimed he needed the same?