interesting article.

wicklaman83

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/two-gardai-convicted-of-assault-outside-pub-1965153.html

Trojan911

How they didn't know it is not an offence to take images in a public place is beyond me....

Fair play to the complainant for persuing it. People just cannot be persecuted for not doing anything wrong, period.

djtechnics1210

They would have been with in their rights to seize the phone as evidence if the images or video footage could be used as evidence in a prosecution in relation to an alleged offence, i.e assault during public order incident, violent disorder etc,any one interested in that case law look up dpp v bradish, relates to cctv etc

Arathorn

djtechnics1210 wrote: »

They would have been with in their rights to seize the phone as evidence if the images or video footage could be used as evidence in a prosecution in relation to an alleged offence, i.e assault during public order incident, violent disorder etc,any one interested in that case law look up dpp v bradish, relates to cctv etc

Seems they didn't take it for evidence as they deleted the footage.

djtechnics1210

Arathorn wrote: »

Seems they didn't take it for evidence as they deleted the footage.

What i was saying is that they could have done this and that is what law states should be done, however what they are alleged to have done was obviously completly the opposite of that. As this is subject to an appeal i have no problem discussing the points of law surrounding evidence on phones etc, but i dont want to comment on an individual case that is before a court

Arathorn

In fairness to them I wouldn't like to be filmed doing my job by a stranger either, probably should have handled it differently though as you said.

utick

what is the big issue with people filiming, i could understand why the gards wouldnt like it if they were following them around with cameras but im not sure what the issue they have with someone just filiming on the street

Just because they are members of the Gardai does not mean that they should be treated any differently from members of the public.

Also, why not adult cautioned? I've seen actual assaults being given them.

Mr Jinx

foreign wrote: »

Also, why not adult cautioned? I've seen actual assaults being given them.

To be adult cautioned they would have had to admit to the charge, which im presuming the didnt.

Mr Jinx

Mr Jinx wrote: »

To be adult cautioned they would have had to admit to the charge, which im presuming the didnt.

Doh, that is true. Back to the legal books for me.

AlekSmart

Interestingly enough the UK forces and particularly the Met have had several "blonde-moments" in relation to the on-street use of cameras and other suchlike equipment.

It first became an issue for"ordinary decent folk" when officious types began to harass Train Spotters going about their hobby at some of the major London terminals.

The blight then spread onto the streets of London as bus spotters began to be apprehended and their images erased withou so much as a by your leave.

I don`t have the link but I believe that after some fairly costly compensatory payments the Met now has a clearer set of operational guidelines issued to ALL officers and Community Support Officers (Who were disproportionately involved in such cases).

I think there is some relevant info here.....

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Unfortunately I have been unable to find any similar relevant information on Garda.ie so one must assume that such guidelines are confidential ?

Shield

As per the Charter, we don't discuss ongoing investigations on this forum.

Thread closed.