Gardai Mess ups..

Rhamiel

Howdy,
I've heard a lot of talk about Garda unprofessionalism lately and also heard some stories of how basic Garda errors allowed criminals escape prosecution.

Stuff like Garda writing wrong date on statement and it being invalid in court etc. or one I heard was Garda not writing in his statement that he removed plastic wrap from mouth piece when breathalyzing an individual for drink driving (who was very very drunk) so that person could not be convicted as a result as evidence was not taken legitimately..

Anyone got any similar stories as I'm wondering how frequently this stuff happens?

Zambia

If this was widespread you would at least have a link. Or a reference to a news story.

Bosco boy

I once heard of a thing called human error, guess the op's profession is free from it, it can be fairly serious if you happen to be a pilot though! Maybe the op would care to tell us what they work at so we could see what a perfect profession it is.

MagicSean

Theres plenty of these garda bashing threads in AH.

PCPhoto

k_mac wrote: »

Theres plenty of these garda bashing threads in AH.

not just in AH ..... just in general.

but in my opinion the main reason behind it is that WHEN a garda makes an error - other members get behind him and deny deny deny .... getting their story straight amongst themselves..... they band together instead of admitting mistakes.

The funny thing is .... if the member admitted a mistake and accepted responsibility then I'm sure others would follow when they make an error (of course - laws could also be change to reflect the possibility of human error)

The vast majority of members do their job perfectly - but when it goes wrong....and (on rare occasion) covered up .... if discovered .... it blows up in their face in a big way.

An example of above would be the McBrearty and Short families in Donegal.

MagicSean

PCPhoto wrote: »

not just in AH ..... just in general.

but in my opinion the main reason behind it is that WHEN a garda makes an error - other members get behind him and deny deny deny .... getting their story straight amongst themselves..... they band together instead of admitting mistakes.

The funny thing is .... if the member admitted a mistake and accepted responsibility then I'm sure others would follow when they make an error (of course - laws could also be change to reflect the possibility of human error)

The vast majority of members do their job perfectly - but when it goes wrong....and (on rare occasion) covered up .... if discovered .... it blows up in their face in a big way.

An example of above would be the McBrearty and Short families in Donegal.

In the examples the Op posted it's more down to judges. An argument of "The garda forgot to say a public place" or "The garda gave the wrong year of the statute" are ridiculous and make a mockery of the legal system. In fact, the whole idea that a garda can be required to prepare and put forward a case against a barrister who has had many years legal training is stupid. I think all gardaí should be given training by the law society on court matters if this is the system we have to work with.

WildOscar

PCPhoto wrote: »

An example of above would be the McBrearty and Short families in Donegal.

was it a mistake that the garda was drinking on duty when the accident occurred?

DublinWriter

Google Judge Curtain.

Bosco boy

What profession dosent stick together to some degree, I think it laughable to hear people in the media and other professions stating this when it's very often their own natural reaction within their own profession. I'm not going to name other professions here and bash them. It's the same few people going around in circles with Garda bashing threads trying to keep them going, it's really pathetic at this stage, the last incident refered to was 1996 - 14 years ago - I rest my case!

MagicSean

DublinWriter wrote: »

Google Judge Curtain.

I presume you mean Judge Curtin. This is the case where a judge narrowed the interpretation of a statute to make the warrant illegal. To most people 7 days would mean 7 x 24 hours, in which case the warrant was legally executed. However for reasons best known to the Judge it was decided that a warrant should be backdated to the start of the day it was granted making the execution illegal.

Bosco boy

WildOscar wrote: »

was it a mistake that the garda was drinking on duty when the accident occurred?

1996! Great example!

angelfire9

I am sick to death of people referring to Donegal and holding that case up as an example of widespread Garda "corruption"

Most decent cops abhor what happened up there and would have nothing but disgust at the actions of the members involved

But hey please continue tarring EVERY garda in the country with the same brush, its not like they aren't used to it! :mad:

deadwood

DublinWriter wrote: »

Google Judge Curtain.

That was an open and shut case.

It was drawn to a close.

Tom10

angelfire9 wrote: »

I am sick to death of people referring to Donegal and holding that case up as an example of widespread Garda "corruption"

Most decent cops abhor what happened up there and would have nothing but disgust at the actions of the members involved

But hey please continue tarring EVERY garda in the country with the same brush, its not like they aren't used to it! :mad:

They hold this up as the most obvious example of a system that can allow this to occur. Of course most professions stand up for their own members but that doesn't make it right and to cite that as a reason why the Garda do it is nonsense. I don't think people expect more from the guards just that they hold their hands up when mistakes are found. Admitting mistake isn't the same as admitting negligence.

Bosco boy

Tom10 wrote: »

They hold this up as the most obvious example of a system that can allow this to occur. Of course most professions stand up for their own members but that doesn't make it right and to cite that as a reason why the Garda do it is nonsense. I don't think people expect more from the guards just that they hold their hands up when mistakes are found. Admitting mistake isn't the same as admitting negligence.

I'm a Garda and I have often apologised to people where nesessary, just cause you ain't around when it happens dosent mean it dosent happen! I know many collegues who have no problem doing the same, I might not give the drunken thug the apology he feels he deserves but maybe that's not corruption or not admitting wrong doing it's it's just doing my job!

Tom10

Bosco boy wrote: »

I'm a Garda and I have often apologised to people where nesessary, just cause you ain't around when it happens dosent mean it dosent happen! I know many collegues who have no problem doing the same, I might not give the drunken thug the apology he feels he deserves but maybe that's not corruption or not admitting wrong doing it's it's just doing my job!

Well I'd say you are more the exception that proves the rule. I know some great Gardai, but as you must know too many get into the profession because it's seen as an easy job and it's very possible to coast on by in it. There are great people in the profession but I think that they can be the minority.

Bosco boy

Tom10 wrote: »

Well I'd say you are more the exception that proves the rule. I know some great Gardai, but as you must know too many get into the profession because it's seen as an easy job and it's very possible to coast on by in it. There are great people in the profession but I think that they can be the minority.

I totally disagree, I work along side these people and I'm not exception and I'm not by any means perfect, if you think it's an easy job there's no point in me arguing with you, I could list of things I've seen and had to do like other people in the EM services that many people would spew their guts at the thought of having to do, but ya it probally is a handy number, what do you do yourself?

Pkiernan

Tom10 wrote: »

Well I'd say you are more the exception that proves the rule. I know some great Gardai, but as you must know too many get into the profession because it's seen as an easy job and it's very possible to coast on by in it. There are great people in the profession but I think that they can be the minority.

I must say that bar one incident, my dealings with the Gardai have been great.
In my experience, if you are polite and respectful you get that back from them.

Always found them to be as helpful as they could be.

Tom10

Bosco boy wrote: »

I totally disagree, I work along side these people and I'm not exception and I'm not by any means perfect, if you think it's an easy job there's no point in me arguing with you, I could list of things I've seen and had to do like other people in the EM services that many people would spew their guts at the thought of having to do, but ya it probally is a handy number, what do you do yourself?

Firstly I didn't say it was an easy job I said it was seen as one by the majority of people. Of course there are very hard parts to it like the vast majority of professions but while I've met great guards I've met many who I would not see as that at all. I don't see what my profession has to do with the point of the thread. Be I a baker or pharmacist it would not change my view on the gardai

Bosco boy

Tom10 wrote: »

Firstly I didn't say it was an easy job I said it was seen as one by the majority of people. Of course there are very hard parts to it like the vast majority of professions but while I've met great guards I've met many who I would not see as that at all. I don't see what my profession has to do with the point of the thread. Be I a baker or pharmacist it would not change my view on the gardai

Well you seem to be taking a very righteous stand and are really taking about low standards in another profession, I think it's fair of me to ask you what your profession is in the circumstances, I may have an opinion on it like you have on the gardai, it's easy hide behind a computer with the curtains drawn, If it was of such high standards you'd have no problem revealing it and we could discuss if you are so prefect!

Tom10

Bosco boy wrote: »

Well you seem to be taking a very righteous stand and are really taking about low standards in another profession, I think it's fair of me to ask you what your profession is in the circumstances, I may have an opinion on it like you have on the gardai, it's easy hide behind a computer with the curtains drawn, If it was of such high standards you'd have no problem revealing it and we could discuss if you are so prefect!

Ok this thread is about Gardai mess ups, not about how all professions have faults. You are a guard so your arguing your point from a biased perspective. I've giving my honest opinion that lots of people go into that job be its perceived as an easy job (i have a friend that admitted it to me before he took the job so there's at least one person who did). I think there are plenty in the profession that do a good job but I think there are more that fail to live up to the standards that the good guards set.

Now I say all this here and gladly say it in public and have done so many a time, to many a guard. So no I'm not hiding behind anything.

HarryPotter41

Tom10 wrote: »

Ok this thread is about Gardai mess ups, not about how all professions have faults. You are a guard so your arguing your point from a biased perspective. I've giving my honest opinion that lots of people go into that job be its perceived as an easy job (i have a friend that admitted it to me before he took the job so there's at least one person who did). I think there are plenty in the profession that do a good job but I think there are more that fail to live up to the standards that the good guards set.

Now I say all this here and gladly say it in public and have done so many a time, to many a guard. So no I'm not hiding behind anything.

Its become a garda bashing thread, not any relevance to the original post and it would be much better if it was gotten back on topic or closed completely.

Rhamiel

Bosco boy wrote: »

I once heard of a thing called human error, guess the op's profession is free from it, it can be fairly serious if you happen to be a pilot though! Maybe the op would care to tell us what they work at so we could see what a perfect profession it is.

Bosco Boy you need to stop taking everything so personal, I've already told you what I do!!!

you make a good point with your quip about it being fairly serious if a pilot makes an error.. as it is when a surgeon does.. thats why these jobs are extremely professionally managed and the consequences are severe for 'mess-ups'

Do you not believe Gardai have an important role in society no? Is the justice system not something that should enforce a high degree of professionalism due to its importance?

Rhamiel

Zambia232 wrote: »

If this was widespread you would at least have a link. Or a reference to a news story.

Heres one recent, fairly serious one
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/charges-for-womans-murder-dropped-due-to-technicality-2384780.html

Rhamiel

k_mac wrote: »

In fact, the whole idea that a garda can be required to prepare and put forward a case against a barrister who has had many years legal training is stupid. I think all gardaí should be given training by the law society on court matters if this is the system we have to work with.

Excellent point

MagicSean

Rhamiel wrote: »

Heres one recent, fairly serious one
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/charges-for-womans-murder-dropped-due-to-technicality-2384780.html

When new legislation and powers are introduced there will always be teething problems in court. Can't be helped. We don't know the exact circumstances of the detention in this case.

Bosco boy

Rhamiel wrote: »

Bosco Boy you need to stop taking everything so personal, I've already told you what I do!!!

you make a good point with your quip about it being fairly serious if a pilot makes an error.. as it is when a surgeon does.. thats why these jobs are extremely professionally managed and the consequences are severe for 'mess-ups'

Do you not believe Gardai have an important role in society no? Is the justice system not something that should enforce a high degree of professionalism due to its importance?

Maybe you'll remind me and fill everyone else in on your mystery occupation?

PCPhoto

Tom10 wrote: »

Well I'd say you are more the exception that proves the rule. I know some great Gardai, but as you must know too many get into the profession because it's seen as an easy job and it's very possible to coast on by in it. There are great people in the profession but I think that they can be the minority.

must disagree there ..... most people who know ANYTHING about the Gardai know their job is a thankless one - its definately not an "easy job" .... like other jobs - there will be periods when things are quiet....it doesn't mean they are not working.

I do however not like when gardai are seen abusing their job - I have witnessed gardai driving in bus lanes (when not on emergency calls) .... or turning the sirens on to bypass traffic - only to stop at the next set of red lights, I have seen.

Even last week - I witnessed gardai - with sirens on come flying across a bridge taking an illegal right turn across traffic ...only to pull up - on the footpath - outside the Four Courts and one member walk inside to goto Aras Ui Dhalaigh - to the fines office - to me it does not constitute an emergency and while not a major waste of tax payers money - it was an abuse of their powers.

like I said earlier - I have huge respect for the Gardai (on occasion) - they have a thankless and difficult job and have to deal with skangers, scumbags and junkies on a regular basis....but some of the law enforcers(gardai) - are regularly seen breaking the law.

In an ideal situation - there would be zero tollerance with regard to breaking the law - you break the law you suffer the consequence.....however this is not possible to enforce with the numbers of gardai out there - they are under sourced and restricted by stupid protocol/regulations....I would like more powers for the gardai - but also for the gardai to enforce more of the laws !!!

mbiking123

Law is full of loopholes, often defence will not allow all the individuals to be tried at once. I have heard were one defence waited to go last. They picked up on a technicality of something that was not in report. In this case identifing themselves as the entered the room before arrest. Only ommited in the report. In any case on that technicality the case was dropped. Despite the fact that the contraband was in the room with them. Obvous they were guilty, but on a technicality got away. Maybe the law favours the guilty

how about

A MOTORIST who was found to be more than two-and-a-half times over the legal drink limit, had the case against him dismissed because of the humidity level in the Garda station where he was breath tested

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drink-driving-case-dismissed-over-humidity-in-garda-station-132308.html#ixzz17B8ttfsd

or An Oranmore man accused of drink driving and crashing into a traffic lights and island, an incident which resulted in one lane of a busy city road being blocked off due to debris, succeeded in having the case dismissed on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove at what time he was driving

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/33038

there are loads of examples, of people getting away with breaking the law. How many cases have fallen because of intimidation.

MagicSean

mbiking123 wrote: »

Law is full of loopholes, often defence will not allow all the individuals to be tried at once. I have heard were one defence waited to go last. They picked up on a technicality of something that was not in report. In this case identifing themselves as the entered the room before arrest. Only ommited in the report. In any case on that technicality the case was dropped. Despite the fact that the contraband was in the room with them. Obvous they were guilty, but on a technicality got away. Maybe the law favours the guilty

how about

A MOTORIST who was found to be more than two-and-a-half times over the legal drink limit, had the case against him dismissed because of the humidity level in the Garda station where he was breath tested

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drink-driving-case-dismissed-over-humidity-in-garda-station-132308.html#ixzz17B8ttfsd

or An Oranmore man accused of drink driving and crashing into a traffic lights and island, an incident which resulted in one lane of a busy city road being blocked off due to debris, succeeded in having the case dismissed on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove at what time he was driving

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/33038

there are loads of examples, of people getting away with breaking the law. How many cases have fallen because of intimidation.

My favourite one is the drink driver who got off because of the urine vapour theory.

mbiking123

air conditioner was not adequate

Rhamiel

Bosco boy wrote: »

Maybe you'll remind me and fill everyone else in on your mystery occupation?

How is it a mystery profession if no one cares what it is in the context of this forum as its completely off the point? Apart from you of course, but maybe the fact you cant understand basic procedures and are unnecessarily confrontational proves what you seem so defensive about aka that your a rubbish Garda.
haha seriously tho chill the beans, if you were actually passionate about what you co you'd agree that a high standard of professionalism should be demanded in law enforcement... Im studying Law by the way if that jogs your memory?

Anyway this is not a Garda bashing/arguing forum, so unless you have any stories of your own mess ups maybe dont bother posting here? g'man

WildOscar

Rhamiel wrote: »

Heres one recent, fairly serious one
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/charges-for-womans-murder-dropped-due-to-technicality-2384780.html

big mess up

WildOscar

Rhamiel wrote: »

, so unless you have any stories of your own mess ups maybe dont bother posting here? g'man

+1

WildOscar

Bosco boy wrote: »

1996! Great example!

you could drink on duty in 1996 when someone was dying on the road?

WildOscar

Bosco boy wrote: »

I'm a Garda and I have often apologised to people where nesessary, just cause you ain't around when it happens dosent mean it dosent happen! I know many collegues who have no problem doing the same, I might not give the drunken thug the apology he feels he deserves but maybe that's not corruption or not admitting wrong doing it's it's just doing my job!

and just because it is not reported does not mean garda do not abuse their powers. i have experience of them lying their way out of it. there are many caes do not come to light cos people fear the cops

detective

Rhamiel wrote: »

Heres one recent, fairly serious one
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/charges-for-womans-murder-dropped-due-to-technicality-2384780.html

If you read this case that you have quoted properly then you'll see that this wasn't necessarily a law enforcement mess up but one which the medical profession made as they wrote on official documents without first consulting with law enforcement officers.

johnnyskeleton

k_mac wrote: »

In the examples the Op posted it's more down to judges. An argument of "The garda forgot to say a public place" or "The garda gave the wrong year of the statute" are ridiculous and make a mockery of the legal system.

Quite the opposite, the fact that in the absence of a required proof a person is entitled to be acquitted, even if that absence is due to a mistake by the prosecution, shows that we have a strong, democratic system of justice. If judges were to simply assume facts or judicially note such facts then we get onto the slippery slope that ends in a presumption of guilt.

k_mac wrote: »

In fact, the whole idea that a garda can be required to prepare and put forward a case against a barrister who has had many years legal training is stupid. I think all gardaí should be given training by the law society on court matters if this is the system we have to work with.

First of all, there is lots of legal training taught in templemore, so all gardai are given some training on how to deal with court cases. They even do mock trials with real barristers. However, an increasing trend in Dublin anyways is to have a prosecuting solicitor deal with hearings. Outside of Dublin it seems to be still the inspector so perhaps to get to the rank of inspector you should have a law degree and/or professional legal qualification (although again it is preferable that lawyers argue cases for the state rather than gardai because prosecution lawyers are obliged to present a fair version of the case and shouldn't (in theory anyway) have any desire to prop up a faulty prosecution.

johnnyskeleton

k_mac wrote: »

I presume you mean Judge Curtin. This is the case where a judge narrowed the interpretation of a statute to make the warrant illegal. To most people 7 days would mean 7 x 24 hours, in which case the warrant was legally executed. However for reasons best known to the Judge it was decided that a warrant should be backdated to the start of the day it was granted making the execution illegal.

A day ends at midnight, or at least such is my reading of the Interpretation Act, 2005:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0023/sched.html#sched-parti

johnnyskeleton

mbiking123 wrote: »

Law is full of loopholes, often defence will not allow all the individuals to be tried at once. I have heard were one defence waited to go last. They picked up on a technicality of something that was not in report. In this case identifing themselves as the entered the room before arrest. Only ommited in the report. In any case on that technicality the case was dropped. Despite the fact that the contraband was in the room with them. Obvous they were guilty, but on a technicality got away. Maybe the law favours the guilty

Eh? sounds like they didn't have a warrant or some such.

mbiking123 wrote: »

how about

A MOTORIST who was found to be more than two-and-a-half times over the legal drink limit, had the case against him dismissed because of the humidity level in the Garda station where he was breath tested

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drink-driving-case-dismissed-over-humidity-in-garda-station-132308.html#ixzz17B8ttfsd

That actually makes sense. The intoxiliser machine is a very sensitive piece of equipment and must be kept within certain parameters. I'm not sure why it didn't record an ambient fail though.

mbiking123 wrote: »

or An Oranmore man accused of drink driving and crashing into a traffic lights and island, an incident which resulted in one lane of a busy city road being blocked off due to debris, succeeded in having the case dismissed on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove at what time he was driving

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/33038

There was no direct evidence of him driving, although there was some form of confession of driving.

mbiking123 wrote: »

How many cases have fallen because of intimidation.

I would say less than is made out to be. These days, whenever a witness retracts their statement, even if it is because they were lying and are going to be caught out, the prosecution trot out the line of intimidation just to save face. In other cases, it's thrown out there as a way to try to prevent bail being granted with no real foundation in reality. If there is real intimidation, why are there not more intimidation prosecutions, because it is a very serious allegation?

mbiking123

Eh? sounds like they didn't have a warrant or some such.

Not that was not the reason, they did not identify themselves, that all

That actually makes sense. The intoxiliser machine is a very sensitive piece of equipment and must be kept within certain parameters. I'm not sure why it didn't record an ambient fail though.

possibly because all was ok ! legal loophole possibly

There was no direct evidence of him driving, although there was some form of confession of driving.

someone was driving his car, he said it was him. Perhaps an uninsured driver

I would say less than is made out to be. These days, whenever a witness retracts their statement, even if it is because they were lying and are going to be caught out, the prosecution trot out the line of intimidation just to save face. In other cases, it's thrown out there as a way to try to prevent bail being granted with no real foundation in reality. If there is real intimidation, why are there not more intimidation prosecutions, because it is a very serious allegation?

ten criminal cases cannot be successfully prosecuted in Limerick due to intimidation http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2010-03-04.316.0
lots more example if you look for them. Intimadation usually the effects the more serious crime. People are afraid to say anything, so they just turn the other way and say nothing. Imagine living in Moyross !

twowheelsonly

Reasonable doubt is usually the matter in question and that's what annoys me about technicalities.
A Garda will get 99 out of a hundred things right but 1 technicallity will blow the prosecution out. That, IMO, is crazy. The Civil Court system of balance of probability is far better as far as I'm concerned.
When a prosecution fails on these technicalities it's always the Garda that is seen as having failed (or f***ed up), despite as stated, the fact that he may have 99/100 things done right.

mbiking123

Judicial review of the 'steam off urine' ruling is struck out

KERRY drivers charged with drink driving will still be able to claim that steam inhaled from urinating could adversely affect an intoxyliser reading, after a High Court challenge to the ruling was struck out recently. The ruling will have a knock-on effect on several similar drink driving cases in Kerry which have been adjourned pending the decision.

http://www.kerryman.ie/premium/news/judicial-review-of-the-steam-off-urine-ruling-is-struck-out-2011454.html


legal farce, lets be honest if I did not give the web link you would not believe me !

Bosco boy

Rhamiel wrote: »

How is it a mystery profession if no one cares what it is in the context of this forum as its completely off the point? Apart from you of course, but maybe the fact you cant understand basic procedures and are unnecessarily confrontational proves what you seem so defensive about aka that your a rubbish Garda.
haha seriously tho chill the beans, if you were actually passionate about what you co you'd agree that a high standard of professionalism should be demanded in law enforcement... Im studying Law by the way if that jogs your memory?

Anyway this is not a Garda bashing/arguing forum, so unless you have any stories of your own mess ups maybe dont bother posting here? g'man

You might be studying law but you'll never practice it!!!!

stevejr

angelfire9 wrote: »

I am sick to death of people referring to Donegal and holding that case up as an example of widespread Garda "corruption"

Most decent cops abhor what happened up there and would have nothing but disgust at the actions of the members involved

But hey please continue tarring EVERY garda in the country with the same brush, its not like they aren't used to it! :mad:

Are you a member of AGS?


Donegal is 1 of 26 counties, and if that sort of indiscipline/corruption can happen in 1 county, unchecked but by exceptional circumstances, posters here would be entitled to air their opinions based on circumstantial(and concrete) evidence across the rest of the country.

Your post is very emotive which which prompts my first question. A lot of posters are very respecting of AGS, so the one brush isn't being wielded too indiscriminantly.

Whether used to it or not, any person employed by the government in a public capacitity, particularly a highly visible job such as AGS should be prepared to take criticism and not imply that it's been given unfairly.

johnnyskeleton

mbiking123 wrote: »

ten criminal cases cannot be successfully prosecuted in Limerick due to intimidation http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2010-03-04.316.0
lots more example if you look for them. Intimadation usually the effects the more serious crime. People are afraid to say anything, so they just turn the other way and say nothing. Imagine living in Moyross !

That dubious statistic is attributed to Michael Murray, State Solicitor. Which actually proves my point that the prosecution authorities have a tendency to exaggerate the level of intimidation. If the intimidation occurs during the investigation stage then the State Solicitor wouldn't have any first hand knowledge of it. If it happened at the DPP/Prosecution stage then there would be 1 in 10 prosecutions in Limerick that nolle prosequi is entered in. More likely, however, the State would proceed with their prosecution and use the section 16 procedure to put the witness statement to the jury. I'm not sure that is the case.

Bosco boy

Rhamiel wrote: »

How is it a mystery profession if no one cares what it is in the context of this forum as its completely off the point? Apart from you of course, but maybe the fact you cant understand basic procedures and are unnecessarily confrontational proves what you seem so defensive about aka that your a rubbish Garda.
haha seriously tho chill the beans, if you were actually passionate about what you co you'd agree that a high standard of professionalism should be demanded in law enforcement... Im studying Law by the way if that jogs your memory?

Anyway this is not a Garda bashing/arguing forum, so unless you have any stories of your own mess ups maybe dont bother posting here? g'man

With all due respect I'll post here again unless a mod bans me, thankfully your not a mod, I have some really good friends in the legal profession and the height of respect for them but I have a gut feeling that while you may say you study law I'd be confident you'll never practice it!!!

johnnyskeleton

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Reasonable doubt is usually the matter in question and that's what annoys me about technicalities.
A Garda will get 99 out of a hundred things right but 1 technicallity will blow the prosecution out.

That's an exaggeration. Most offences have no more than 4/5 ingredients to the offence, and, in the district court at least, a similar number of garda witnesses.

Plus, the word technicality is abused. A mistake will only result in an acquittal if it rases a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge. This goes beyond merely failing to tick a box on some form and usually relates to some crucial fact which could be interpreted in several ways. So no one ever gets off "on a technicality", they get off because the trier of fact has a doubt in his/her/their mind.

An example of a technicality which would raise a doubt is where a person is charged with theft but the alleged owner of the property doesn't appear in court. Even though the accused may have been caught coming out a window in a balaclava carrying a big back marked "swag", unless the owner of the property comes forward and states that they did not give the person permission to take it, it is entirely possible that the person was merely taking their own property out of their own home in a somewhat unusual circumstance..

Another thing that is also described as a technicality is where evidence is excluded because it breaches a constitutional right. However, there is a fairly solid rationale beind this - if the State deliberately breaches a constitutional right, however slight the outcome, they are not entitled to rely on that breach in court. For the courts to hold otherwise would be to condone the State's breach of a person's constitutional rights.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

That, IMO, is crazy. The Civil Court system of balance of probability is far better as far as I'm concerned.

Right. So what has been necessary for hundreds of years in all constitutional democracies is not good enough for you?

twowheelsonly wrote: »

When a prosecution fails on these technicalities it's always the Garda that is seen as having failed (or f***ed up), despite as stated, the fact that he may have 99/100 things done right.

It's rarely the Garda that is blamed, although occasionally they will be a bit miffed for "losing" (another poor turn of phrase, gardai never win or lose cases, they simply present evidence for the prosecution). Usually, it is the likes of yourself who complain about "technicalities" that apportion blame, and it is usually on the judge or on defence counsel. Everyone else realises that occasionally mistakes will be made, and that it is better overall that some people get to benefit from these mistakes than that the mistakes go unmarked.

angelfire9

stevejr wrote: »

Are you a member of AGS?


Donegal is 1 of 26 counties, and if that sort of indiscipline/corruption can happen in 1 county, unchecked but by exceptional circumstances, posters here would be entitled to air their opinions based on circumstantial(and concrete) evidence across the rest of the country.

Your post is very emotive which which prompts my first question. A lot of posters are very respecting of AGS, so the one brush isn't being wielded too indiscriminantly.

Whether used to it or not, any person employed by the government in a public capacitity, particularly a highly visible job such as AGS should be prepared to take criticism and not imply that it's been given unfairly.

No I'm not

I'm a Garda wife who expected her husband home around 3pm today following his 6-2 shift and actually waited until 11.30pm to see him because he was stuck at work for 8.5 hours (that he won't get paid for ) due to some juvenile detention/chain of evidence thing that meant he couldn't leave on time

I'm a Garda daughter that sat at home in 1996 with my mother locked into our house while my father & his colleagues in the Clare Garda division were being shot at while trying to apprehend Brendan O'Donnell

I have spent my entire life around Gardai which is something very few people on boards can claim and I have NEVER seen or heard the like of Donegal in any of the towns I have lived in while traipsing the country as a Garda brat or a Garda wife
(my father was stationed in numerous locations when we were kids and where he went we went ditto for hubby but not as much as less promotions)

I have found that there is far more criticism of Gardai on boards then there is support
Gardai are routinely referred to as "pigs" and I was informed on another thread that

if someone oinked at your kid your hubby and his thug work mates would probably just invade their home and beat them with their batons or make their life a living hell,like the mcbeartys in dun na gall.

:eek:

AGS as an institute has put food on my table and clothes on my back for my entire life and I will always 110% defend the majority of rank & file Gardai who do their jobs every day without resorting to corruption, violence or intimidation

You have implied (from my reading of it) that Donegal is 1 of 26 counties and that the only reason we don't have examples from the other 25 is that the Gardai have never been caught then it is my believe from years of experience that you are well & truly wrong

Rhamiel

Bosco boy wrote: »

With all due respect I'll post here again unless a mod bans me, thankfully your not a mod, I have some really good friends in the legal profession and the height of respect for them but I have a gut feeling that while you may say you study law I'd be confident you'll never practice it!!!

Good one.. and thats based on accurate and comprehensive knowledge of my persona, work ethic, grades, study habits and career objectives is it? :rolleyes:

MagicSean

Rhamiel wrote: »

Anyway this is not a Garda bashing/arguing forum, so unless you have any stories of your own mess ups maybe dont bother posting here? g'man

You have to be joking. You don't see any contradiction in this sentance?

WildOscar wrote: »

you could drink on duty in 1996 when someone was dying on the road?

Can you quote any rule to the contrary?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Quite the opposite, the fact that in the absence of a required proof a person is entitled to be acquitted, even if that absence is due to a mistake by the prosecution, shows that we have a strong, democratic system of justice. If judges were to simply assume facts or judicially note such facts then we get onto the slippery slope that ends in a presumption of guilt.

That's ridiculous and you know it. Typical legal crap. The same kind of attitude that requires murder trials to spend days proving that something is in fact a gun. Waste of time and money which is endemic in the legal profession at the higher levels.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

First of all, there is lots of legal training taught in templemore, so all gardai are given some training on how to deal with court cases. They even do mock trials with real barristers.

I feel I must disagree with you there. The legal training is far from sufficient.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However, an increasing trend in Dublin anyways is to have a prosecuting solicitor deal with hearings. Outside of Dublin it seems to be still the inspector so perhaps to get to the rank of inspector you should have a law degree and/or professional legal qualification (although again it is preferable that lawyers argue cases for the state rather than gardai because prosecution lawyers are obliged to present a fair version of the case and shouldn't (in theory anyway) have any desire to prop up a faulty prosecution.

I think we are agreed on this.

That's an exaggeration. Most offences have no more than 4/5 ingredients to the offence, and, in the district court at least, a similar number of garda witnesses.

But the workload to prove one of those ingredients is getting higher and higher. A person known to me could walk up to me and punch me in the face and break my jaw in front of 10 people. But the defence is still entitled to all cctv. If the Gardaí for one reason or the other can't get some cctv the case can be thrown out. These kind of decisions make a mockery of the system.

Plus, the word technicality is abused. A mistake will only result in an acquittal if it rases a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge. This goes beyond merely failing to tick a box on some form and usually relates to some crucial fact which could be interpreted in several ways. So no one ever gets off "on a technicality", they get off because the trier of fact has a doubt in his/her/their mind.

I've seen people get off because a date in a statement is wrong or a Garda quoted the wrong year of a statute.

An example of a technicality which would raise a doubt is where a person is charged with theft but the alleged owner of the property doesn't appear in court. Even though the accused may have been caught coming out a window in a balaclava carrying a big back marked "swag", unless the owner of the property comes forward and states that they did not give the person permission to take it, it is entirely possible that the person was merely taking their own property out of their own home in a somewhat unusual circumstance..

That isn't a technicality. That is a lack of evidence.

Another thing that is also described as a technicality is where evidence is excluded because it breaches a constitutional right. However, there is a fairly solid rationale beind this - if the State deliberately breaches a constitutional right, however slight the outcome, they are not entitled to rely on that breach in court. For the courts to hold otherwise would be to condone the State's breach of a person's constitutional rights.

I presume you refer to detentions for the main part. Our main power of detention dates from 1984 and is badly in need of updating. As do the rules for interviewing.

It's rarely the Garda that is blamed, although occasionally they will be a bit miffed for "losing" (another poor turn of phrase, gardai never win or lose cases, they simply present evidence for the prosecution). Usually, it is the likes of yourself who complain about "technicalities" that apportion blame, and it is usually on the judge or on defence counsel. Everyone else realises that occasionally mistakes will be made, and that it is better overall that some people get to benefit from these mistakes than that the mistakes go unmarked.

I'll hazard a guess you work in the area of defence. Have you ever actually put together a prosecution against someone? How much easier is it to pick holes in a book of evidence than to put it together? The current system favours the defendant far too much.