Section 11 - Public 0rder Act 1994 - tresspassing

spoiled brat

A cousin of mine recently got arrested under Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 - under the auspices that he was trespassing on private land. He was taking a leisurely river walk with his mate, using a well used r.o.w , when he stopped to talk to a few people whom were down by the river bank, who were sitting about chatting, in the sunny afternoon. The garda showed up and told the group, including my cousin to move along, that the landowner had rang them, and the garda said all the poeple were trespassing on private land. My cousin stated to the garda that there was a common right of way along the riverbank, to a weir , and had been used by the people of the area for many generations, and that he was excising his rights to pass over this r.o.w, without interference. The garda stated that if he did not leave the land, he would be arrested, and my cousin asked the garda under which Act and Section he would be arresting people with. My cousin wasn’t abusive or drunk, or behaving with intent, in fact he sat down on the ground cross legged and said he was only doing what was been done for generations, and if he was going to be arrested , he demanded to know under what exact legal circumstances. The garda arrested him, but did not tell him the specific act or section as demanded, and mumbled something about trespassing. He was taken to the station and charged under the above act, and released 45 mins later. I know he is a bolshie sort, but is not a blaggard, or scally, and is well educated.

It is my understanding that the under the act, the prosecution must prove that there was intent to commit and offence, or unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein. he was arrested in an empty field, and the landowner house and other properties is over 500 - 600m away as the crow flies. He was taking a recreational stroll, not going to burgle, destroy, or steal anything belonging to the landowner, and was travelling along a public r.o.w. the was no fences, gates, or signs warning of private land. the other 4 people there did not get arrested, and stood on looking at the proceedings happening, but my cousin basically got nicked for being a smartarse is suppose, which is not a criminal offence as yet?

im not looking for legal advice here, as my cousin has a solicitor, whom says he has a good chance of the case being struck out under the circumstances, but I want to know if anybody else has experiences similar to this, and what was the outcome??

regards

spoiled brat

drkpower

The activity (tresspassing) only needs a 'reasonable inference' that an offence was going to be committed. i suppose the Garda could say that your cousin's mere presence (and then refusal to leave when asked) inferred that he was intent on comitting an offence. Sounds like one that will depend on what judge you will get, and the evidecne both parties will give.

The more difficult part for the Garda to sustain is that the area was in the vicinity ....of the curtilage of a building, if in reality it was 600m+ away. One would expect there might be some case law on this.

But before you start getting the books out, remember, the Distruct Court isnt really about the law and making a big legal song and dance of this kind of thing brings wit it certain risks, particularly if you get the wrong judge. So tread carefully!

Bosco boy

Basically you have a group of youths drinking in the middle of the day on someones property, if this was happening on your cousins parents property and they were'nt his friends i bet he's be quick to call the gaurds and tell them to arrest the youths if they did'nt leave. He needs to change his attitude before he goes to court. The arguement hes putting up in relation to legitimate access goes out the window with the activity of the group on the property. The gaurd was perfectly correct, the offence is Sec 11 POA, the power of arrest is sec 24.

eagle_&_bear

be thankful charges under section 4, 6 and 8 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act havent been persued.

although, wait until you receive the charge sheets - I'd be very surprised if they are not amongst the charges.

Agree with previous text about changing attitutde. It remains an offence simpliciter to fail to abide by a direction of AGS so that alone could warrant arrest.

In any event, you should speak to a solicitor as only they can help you move forward on this issue.

spoiled brat

His charge sheet only referred to Section 11, and no other sections were persued. If there had been no r.o.w on the land, my cousin would never have been there at all. He said he was only carrying out his right for civil disobediance, because he was evoking his right to pass and repass over the r.o.w, which is mentioned in the title deeds of the land. This is a riverside walk, and not in the landowners front or backgarden, it within 70m of a housing development, and the area can not even be seen by the landowner. It is an open area, with specific walks / paths, and trestles used set up over fences, by a local community group with the employment of FAS workers, but some has fallen into disrepair due to lack of maintenance,to facilitate this specific river walk in previous years. This is not about a bunch of uncouth yobs sitting on some neoghbours wall, or in thier garden being anti-social, as one poster potrays it, it is about a landowner trying to prevent persons in a local community using a r.o.w that has been there for generations.

If the landowner could legally fence off the walkway, he certainly would have done so quite happliy over the years, but he knows the local community would be up in arms, so he has not, and could not. Has it come to the state, that we all now have to roll over, and show our belly's whenever a Garda shows up, or can a citizen not try to stand up for a right in which they believe in, peacefully and without malice??. The fact that the landowners house is 500 - 600m away from the spot in question, and has 10-15 acres of hardwood forest between the walk, mean that all persons on the r.o.w may be intent to cause damage or harm to the landowner, and his property ???. Remember the r.o.w is signifigant, to this case, because, without it my cousin would not have been on the land in the 1st place.

if the court is not the place to question the motives behind the detention, and the law used to enact the arrest then where is to be queried??

darragh666

As far as I know a right of way can only be used to get from point A to point B. It dosent mean a person can stop to chat or sit around. So it would probably be considered trespassing.

MagicSean

Also if the case gets struck out on the grounds of right of way couldn't the garda then just summons your cousin under the public order act for failing to leave when directed.

Jo King

k_mac wrote: »

Also if the case gets struck out on the grounds of right of way couldn't the garda then just summons your cousin under the public order act for failing to leave when directed.

A guard can only direct a person to leave a public place. If it was private land as the guard claims then he couldn't order him to leave under the public order act.

The guard has to have grounds to order someone to leave a public place. Guards can't just go around ordering people to leave particular places. The guard in this situation does not seem to have a clue.

Hooch

eagle_&_bear wrote: »

be thankful charges under section 4, 6 and 8 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act havent been persued.

although, wait until you receive the charge sheets - I'd be very surprised if they are not amongst the charges.

Agree with previous text about changing attitutde. It remains an offence simpliciter to fail to abide by a direction of AGS so that alone could warrant arrest.

In any event, you should speak to a solicitor as only they can help you move forward on this issue.

If he was charged for section 11 it would make it a private place.....not a public one and so 4,6 and 8 could not be persued....continued below.

k_mac wrote: »

Also if the case gets struck out on the grounds of right of way couldn't the garda then just summons your cousin under the public order act for failing to leave when directed.

Right on the money.....if the Section 11 charge sheet is struck out beacuse it is a public place, he can be re arrested on the morning of the cout and charged with Section 4, 6 and 8 CJ (PO) Act 94 as long as he complies with the offence criteria.

See a solicitor....

Hooch

Jo King wrote: »

A guard can only direct a person to leave a public place. If it was private land as the guard claims then he couldn't order him to leave under the public order act.

The guard has to have grounds to order someone to leave a public place. Guards can't just go around ordering people to leave particular places. The guard in this situation does not seem to have a clue.

If it turns out that it is a right of way then it is a public place for the purposes of public order;).....wouldnt be saying he didnt have a clue to be honest.....

Our man in Havana

At what point does trespassing on private property become a criminal offence?

Jo King

nice guy always wrote: »

If he was charged for section 11 it would make it a private place.....not a public one and so 4,6 and 8 could not be persued....continued below.



Right on the money.....if the Section 11 charge sheet is struck out beacuse it is a public place, he can be re arrested on the morning of the cout and charged with Section 4, 6 and 8 CJ (PO) Act 94 as long as he complies with the offence criteria.

See a solicitor....

You should read Section 24 of the Public Order Act. A person can only be arrested for an offence under the Public Order Act at the time the alleged offence is being committed.
I am not going to comment further lest it prejudices the conduct of the case.
Abuse of the Public Order Act by the guards is endemic. This case is a classic.

Jo King

Bond-007 wrote: »

At what point does trespassing on private property become a criminal offence?

Under section 19A of the public order act or under Section 11. The trespass itself is not the offence. it is the conduct while trespassing that makes up the offence.

timmywex

Jo King wrote: »

You should read Section 24 of the Public Order Act. A person can only be arrested for an offence under the Public Order Act at the time the alleged offence is being committed.
I am not going to comment further lest it prejudices the conduct of the case.
Abuse of the Public Order Act by the guards is endemic. This case is a classic.

Eh how'd ya figure that one?

Sec 24 refers to powers of arrest without warrant for somone who refuses to give details mainly

I tcan think of many cases where people are arrested for public order after an incident occured, surely the same limitations on arrest as any other crime apply.

1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána finds any person committing an offence under a relevant provision, the member may arrest such person without warrant.
[GA]

(2) Where a member of the Garda Síochána is of the opinion that an offence has been committed under a relevant provision, the member may—
[GA]

( a ) demand the name and address of any person whom the member suspects, with reasonable cause, has committed, or whom the member finds committing, such an offence, and
[GA]

( b ) arrest without warrant any such person who fails or refuses to give his name and address when demanded, or gives a name or address which the member has reasonable grounds for believing is false or misleading.
[GA]

(3) Any person who fails or refuses to give his name and address when demanded by virtue of subsection (2), or gives a name or address when so demanded which is false or misleading, shall be guilty of an offence.
[GA]

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or to both.
[GA]

(5) In this section "relevant provision" means section 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19.

Goesague

timmywex wrote: »

Eh how'd ya figure that one?

Sec 24 refers to powers of arrest without warrant for somone who refuses to give details mainly

I tcan think of many cases where people are arrested for public order after an incident occured, surely the same limitations on arrest as any other crime apply.

Section 24 is mainly concerned with the powers of arrest for all offences under the Public Order Act. You are making the mistake of assuming that the volume of print on an issue reflects the relative importance of the issue.
It is quite clear. When a guard comes upon an incident he has a power of arrest. If he does not he can demand the name an address of the person alleged to be involved and can issue a summons. What a guard can't do is come upon an incident, go away and come back months later and arrest the alleged culprit.
If guards arrest someone without a warrant following a reported incident the arrest is invalid. Any competent lawyer would get the charge thrown out.

spoiled brat

Can I assume then, if my cousin is successful in getting the trespass Sec 11 - struck out, the AGS can, and may, charge him under Section 4, 6, or 8 ?? even though these sections were not invoked in the charge sheet.

If it was proven that the R.O.W exists, and it proven that he was initially using the r.o.w from Point A - B, and only stopped to talk to the people whom were sitting on the river bank, when the AGS came along, can it be construed, that because he only questioned the motives, and laws being used to move him off a public place (or is it a private place with just public access along a certain route ) that this can seriously be understood by AGS that he was giving reasonable inference that he was about to commit an offence, or to unlawfully interfere with the landowners property ??

Commentry

AGS : Move along lads, weve had a call from the landowner, whom says he has no public liability insurance, and he want ye all off his land, as yer all tresspassing - move along now lad, like good fellas.

Defendant : Im sorry Gaurd, but I am on a public r.o.w , and I dont see the need to move along, the landowner has been trying to stop the local community for years from using the river walk, and im invoking my right to use the walk for my recreational use, now and in the future.

AGS - Less of the smart chat lads, and move along now, or well have to arrest ye all!

Defendant : Under what Act and Section are you going to arrest us under Garda.??

AGS : Silence

Defendant : Same question again !

AGS : They move away from the defendant and start telling the other members of the group to move along or they will be arrested.

Defendant : Same question to AGS again !!

AGS - Now lads, final warning if ye dont move along, then youl all be nicked, fer tresspassing.

Defendant : I am using the r.o.w as have generations before me have done so, and I dont see the need for me to leave the river walk, as I am doing no damage to the property belonging to the landowner, or mean no harm to the man, but I think you are wrong in what you are doing, and I am standing up for my rights as a local community member and a citizen of this state, as I am causing no interference with anybody! you can arresst me if you want and will not be resisting arresst, and am making a peacefull point of issue and protest, and thus sits down on th ground crosslegged.


AGS : What is your name and address (to defendant & it was given without protest). Then you are under arrest for er!! oh yeah - TRESSPASSING!!

Defendant : Under exactly what Act and Section are you going arresting me under Garda.??

AGS : Cuffs defendant : take to local station : charged under Section 11 - Defendant released 45 min after entering station.

At what point of the described event, did the defendant make reasonable inference that he was going to commit an offence against the landowner, or his property, which was over 500-600m away?? apart from question the motives, and legality of AGS and the landowner. Non of the other group, whom were still standing on the river bank were nicked?? He was nicked in my view for being a smartarse in the view of the Garda. As I said before hes not a blaggard, but feels that his rights were being infringed, and dared to say so!!

In summary

• Was it a private or public offence - lets assume the r.o.w exists ?
• Did the defendant reasonably infere that he was a threat to the landowners and his property, and was going to commit a crime against thus ?
• Should have AGS nicked the other people as well, as the defendant ?
• Can the Defendant be charged now under different sections of the POA - now that the event has passed ?
• If the case is struck out - could the defendant claim wrongfull arrest and imprisonment ?

This seem a Prima Facia case until one see the overall picture. This is a mixture, of landlaw, criminal, and civil rolled into one, and at the end of a young man may end up with criminal conviction, because he dared stand up "the man".

regard

spoiled brat

Goesague

Commenting on the above may not help the defendant. The guard will have to be cross examined as to what happened. There are tactical moves which should be made now. If the prosecuting guard reads them he will be forewarned. If he has a competent solicitor there should be no problem. Many people have public order convictions because of abuse of the Public Order Act.

MagicSean

Goesague wrote: »

If guards arrest someone without a warrant following a reported incident the arrest is invalid. Any competent lawyer would get the charge thrown out.

I presume you are referring only to the public order act there. If someone reports a theft a garda can arrest a suspect without a warrant. I addition a person can also be arrested for the purpose of charging them with an offence.

spoiled brat wrote: »

Can I assume then, if my cousin is successful in getting the trespass Sec 11 - struck out, the AGS can, and may, charge him under Section 4, 6, or 8 ?? even though these sections were not invoked in the charge sheet.

They can summons him. If he was directed to leave a public place and refused he commits an offence under Section 8. It's not uncommon for additional charges to be brought against a person on a later date either. Does anyone know if double jeopardy would apply here though?

spoiled brat wrote: »

If it was proven that the R.O.W exists, and it proven that he was initially using the r.o.w from Point A - B, and only stopped to talk to the people whom were sitting on the river bank, when the AGS came along, can it be construed, that because he only questioned the motives, and laws being used to move him off a public place (or is it a private place with just public access along a certain route ) that this can seriously be understood by AGS that he was giving reasonable inference that he was about to commit an offence, or to unlawfully interfere with the landowners property ??

If it is a right of way I would think that it doesn't include stopping to have a picnic by the river. I would expect you have to go from A to B. I never listened in Land Law classes though. In regards to the interfering with the owners property. Could the owner claim he kept pheasants or something in that area and they were being poached? Or that he had fencing around the area that was been constantly damaged. In any case you cousin provided no valid reason for being in the area.

spoiled brat wrote: »

• Was it a private or public offence - lets assume the r.o.w exists ?
• Did the defendant reasonably infere that he was a threat to the landowners and his property, and was going to commit a crime against thus ?
• Should have AGS nicked the other people as well, as the defendant ?
• Can the Defendant be charged now under different sections of the POA - now that the event has passed ?
• If the case is struck out - could the defendant claim wrongfull arrest and imprisonment ?

I am of the belief that in this case the area was a public place. Section 3 of the Public Order Act describes a public place as
( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,

So in this case I think Section 8 would have been the way to go.

I don't see why the Gardaí should have arrested the others. None of them were refusing to leave.

Extra charges can be brought and the other one can be struck out.

spoiled brat wrote: »

This seem a Prima Facia case until one see the overall picture. This is a mixture, of landlaw, criminal, and civil rolled into one, and at the end of a young man may end up with criminal conviction, because he dared stand up "the man".

I lolled at this bit. Who is "the man"?

Jo King wrote: »

A guard can only direct a person to leave a public place. If it was private land as the guard claims then he couldn't order him to leave under the public order act.

The guard has to have grounds to order someone to leave a public place. Guards can't just go around ordering people to leave particular places. The guard in this situation does not seem to have a clue.

Well if there is a group of people in a place and there activities are such to cause a member of the public to be concerned and report them that could be grounds for a direction.

spoiled brat

Ok - then we can take it that the others sections can or may be invoked later on, if the section 11 is struck out.

and lets also accept that this was a public place : Section 3 of the Public Order Act describes a public place as

( b ) any outdoor area to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise, and which is used for public recreational purposes,

lets also accept the R.O.W is provable, and that using that r.o.w for recreational use, gave the defendant purpose and reason to be at the location.

---

Right Lets concentrate of the SEC 11- as jo King stated below

Jo King wrote: »

Under section 19A of the public order act or under Section 11. The trespass itself is not the offence. it is the conduct while trespassing that makes up the offence.

therefore , is my cousins conduct which led to the arrest enough to convince a court, that he was reasonably infering that he was about to commit an offence against the landowner and his property, given the fact which we know about the case,such as the conduct of the defendant, his approx wording used, and the manner in which it was conveyed, and the distance between the landowners house.

no game of fences or such like were in threat of being damaged.

The question is, can a query about the legality and motive behind the AGS actions and reasoning, be a catalist to persue a section 11.

The DPP has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's presence was soley and conclusivley for the purposes to commit an offence or to unlawfully interfere with property.

Leaving the section 8 out of the question, failing to abide by the directions of AGS, which he has not been charged with as yet and is a seperate issue at this point in time,

and looking directly at sec 11 - can asking questions, of the AGS , without malice, nor aggression , clearly stating that you mean no harm to landowner or his property - invoke sec 11 in its own right.

regards

spoiled brat

MagicSean

spoiled brat wrote: »

therefore , is my cousins conduct which led to the arrest enough to convince a court, that he was reasonably infering that he was about to commit an offence against the landowner and his property, given the fact which we know about the case,such as the conduct of the defendant, his approx wording used, and the manner in which it was conveyed, and the distance between the landowners house.

no game of fences or such like were in threat of being damaged.

The question is, can a query about the legality and motive behind the AGS actions and reasoning, be a catalist to persue a section 11.

Your assuming the conversation was the grounds for arrest. In reality the garda could have made up his mind before even talking to them and used his discretion until your cousin started mouthing off.

spoiled brat wrote: »

The DPP has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's presence was soley and conclusivley for the purposes to commit an offence or to unlawfully interfere with property.

Technically yes. In reality the garda just has to convince a judge. And they don't have to prove he was there solely to commit a crime. They merely have to prove that it is reasonably likely he was going to commit a crime. For example, underage drinking, public drunkeness, disorderly conduct, criminal damage, theft.

spoiled brat wrote: »

and looking directly at sec 11 - can asking questions, of the AGS , without malice, nor aggression , clearly stating that you mean no harm to landowner or his property - invoke sec 11 in its own right.

Every criminal says they are innocent. Who admits they are going to commit a crime?

pirelli

k_mac wrote: »

Every criminal says they are innocent. Who admits they are going to commit a crime?

Every Garda claims they are incorruptible. Who admits they are going to become corrupt.

Well the GRA general secretary made such an admission.

The claim was made by the Garda Representative Association's (GRA) general secretary PJ Stone at the association's annual conference in Limerick

GARDAI who have been left "shell-shocked" by Government cuts may become corrupt if pay cuts and the rules surrounding part-time jobs are not changed

.

By that logic can your attitude really sway a public court K -Mac.Can you swagger into a court and claim we are all criminals intent on commiting crimes on your highly questionable word.

MagicSean

pirelli wrote: »

Every Garda claims they are incorruptible. Who admits they are going to become corrupt.

Well the GRA general secretary made such an admission.

.

By that logic can your attitude really sway a public court K -Mac.Can you swagger into a court and claim we are all criminals intent on commiting crimes on your highly questionable word.

I dont get what you are saying. Are you trying to suggest that all gardaí are corrupt and so their word cant be accepted? I suppose it's fortunate for Gardaí that judges don't think like you.

pirelli

k_mac wrote: »

I dont get what you are saying. Are you trying to suggest that all gardaí are corrupt and so their word cant be accepted? I suppose it's fortunate for Gardaí that judges don't think like you.

You don't get what i am suggesting or what i am saying. Which is it.

The GRA has made these admissions.

I like your view of a thinking Judge. They are thinking men them judges and they think a certain way.

-sigh-

MagicSean

pirelli wrote: »

You don't get what i am suggesting or what i am saying. Which is it.

The GRA has made these admissions.

I like your view of a thinking Judge. They are thinking men them judges and they think a certain way.

-sigh-

What has any of that got to do with this thread?

eagle_&_bear

SEE!!! this is why we say ''see a solicitor'

Lots of opinion and lots of very good advice per se but really...go see a solicitor.

You simply can't rely on the comments here without seeing a solicitor.

This is where certain provisions get technical and this is where you have to consider briefing counsel on the matter.

*see a solicitor*

I wish you the very best

pirelli

k_mac wrote: »

What has any of that got to do with this thread?

Your attitude annoys me considering you claim to be a Garda. Bad enough people can't walk along a public path, but now everyone is a criminal until proven innocent. Your just poorly educated and even admit openly you didn't sit through land law classes. Your the last person that should be allowed to swagger into a courtroom and allege criminality and see a young man convicted. I like your view of irish judges though; spot on.

Every criminal says they are innocent. Who admits they are going to commit a crime?

You don't see any good in people at do you.

spoiled brat

k_mac wrote: »

Your assuming the conversation was the grounds for arrest. In reality the garda could have made up his mind before even talking to them and used his discretion until your cousin started mouthing off.



Technically yes. In reality the garda just has to convince a judge. And they don't have to prove he was there solely to commit a crime. They merely have to prove that it is reasonably likely he was going to commit a crime. For example, underage drinking, public drunkeness, disorderly conduct, criminal damage, theft.



Every criminal says they are innocent. Who admits they are going to commit a crime?

If the AGS had his mind made up before he spoke to the people on the riverbank, then so much for due process, and the only reason for the arrest could only have been due to the conversation, and not "mouthing off" as you eloquently put it - but rather asking simple and serious questions that the AGS could not effectively answer adequately - and went into default mode - when in doubt arrest,arrest arrest, because when people do not tug their forelock and genuflect on one knee, when the boys in blue give fourth their expansive knowledge (or lack of) of the law. I respect the uniform, and the law, but not always the amadans that sometimes inhabit it.


If the AGS only has to convince a judge the defendant was likely to commit any crime, not just against the landowners and his property, examples such as underage / public drunkenness - the defendant is over 18 and was not drunk (and was released after 45 station - if he was pissed they would have kept him in longer , until he sobered up, would you not admit) - disorderly conduct - he was not shouting or roaring / acting in an aggressive manner, swinging his arms about , pointing , jumping about, getting in the face of the AGS - he was calm and collected, and asked the AGS simple and serious questions in the correct manner, criminal damage / theft there was nodamage to fences or other items belonging to the landowner (remember he was on a r.o.w pathway, which is open to public) what could the defendant steal (a tree) please tell me k mac, how would you convince a judge that the defendant was going to commit a crime based on the information above ???

You have judged my cousin a criminal already, because he is not going to admit to maybe / possibly going to admit a crime, but the wording of sec 11, states that the defendant must reasonably infer that they going to commit a crime, any crime. Does that mean, standing with your hands in your pockets, asking questions to AGS, mean you can be held of suspicion , by indicating / assuming that you will commit a crime. Therefore the AGS is judge and jury, and is left to their discretion as whether to arrest the person. This is why the POA is one of the most abused sections of law by AGS. Its quite obvious k mac, by your attitude you are a peeler, or have been, in the past and is not going to give an independent, impassive opinion, and stop rising to Pirrelli’s bait , and going off thread theme.


Eagle and Bear, - yes my cousin has a solicitor, and is going to defend this action all the way, and appeal to the circuit court if need be. I agree with earlier post in that the district court judges, are terribly lazy, in that they don’t want to hear arguments based on points of law, they just want to fire out fines for the Sat night specials - Sections 4, 6, & 8, without having to get the law books out, but I feel here there is a case to answer , and would like constructive – impassive opinion, without people squabbling about the good and bad points of the AGS. The AGS done his job in the way he felt was right at the time – I feel he should have applied section 8, instead of 11, but also I feel he should be better clued up when dealing with these sorts of situations. Sometimes members of the AGS play on peoples ignorance of the law, to push people about (metaphorically) and abuse their position (sometimes) and when someone tries to pull them on legitimate points of law – they feel threatened and revert to type. I understand AGS cant pull out their law lecture notes every time someone questions them, but not everybody whom may question their actions is being a smartarse, or mouthing off (as k mac may state) and without questioning the law. how will it ever evolve into a better, and more fair system.


BTW – I cant honestly see, how the AGS can prove to a judge that the defendant was reasonably inferring that he was about to commit an offence against the landowner and his property, given the fact which we know about the case, such as the conduct of the defendant, his approx wording used, and the manner in which it was conveyed, and the distance between the landowners house. The defendant has the other members of the group, to verify what his actions were, and what he said if required, just incase the AGS may try to guild the lily, in order to get his conviction quota .



Please dont get all uppety and offended by that remark - k mac, just try reading the transcripts from the Morris Tribunal - you will soon see the attitude that is endemic throuought the force, and in every county. It still exists, but is much more concealed now, and not so blatent. remember "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" AGS is not above pulling strokes to the detriment of innocent other parties.

Regard
Spoiled brat

Jo King

O/P it is very ill advised to be debating the merits of a case on a public forum. If the prosecuting guard reads it, he might well supplement the notes in his notebook and prepare himself for the questions he will be asked in court. You could ruin a perfectly good defence by commenting in public before a trial. You can see how members of AGS contradict themselves in this debate. Many of them do not know the law properly and thus make mistakes which can be exploited in court.