Person charged over arson attack on Gatso Van

Nice to see

Man charged over arson attack on garda van


A man has been charged with setting fire to a garda speed detection van and with endangering the life of a garda who was in the van at the time.

A 30-year-old man has been charged with setting fire to a garda speed detection van and with endangering the life of a garda who was in the van at the time.
Gareth Hill of the View, Gleann na Rí, Tower, Blarney, Co Cork, replied 'no comment' when the charges were put to him at Cork District Court.
He is charged with arson of the garda van and with engaging in conduct that created a risk of death or serious injury to Garda Paul Hooley.
The incident is alleged to have occurred on 27 August 2009 at Booleypatrick in Tower.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated that Mr Hill will be tried on indictment at the Circuit Criminal Court.
He was released on bail until 11 April next to allow time for the preparation of a book of evidence.

RTÉ

discus

Does he have any previous convictions?

Terrontress

Regardless of anyone's views of Gatso vans, setting fire to any vehicle with someone inside is insanity.

maglite

Petrol bombed with a plastic bottle. Smarts has he...

MagicSean

Great news. I didn't think they'd get anyone for this. Some good work.

discus

discus wrote: »

Does he have any previous convictions?

The person has only been charged. Information like that if known can't be released as it could prejudice a trial.

BrianD

Any progress with the van that was destroyed near Dundalk? Think that one belonged to the private contractors.

CB19Kevo

only right that this individual pays out for a Brand new van and all the equipment considering he was in such a rush to destroy it....
doubt that will happen though....:rolleyes:

sdanseo

Thought it was a private operator crewing the vans, how come there was a Garda inside? Sounds like it was an AGS van and not in fact one of the high-profile outsourced ones?

goldie fish

sdonn wrote: »

Thought it was a private operator crewing the vans, how come there was a Garda inside? Sounds like it was an AGS van and not in fact one of the high-profile outsourced ones?

The date of the offence makes it clearer.
When was the civvy van introduced?

The one in Cork was a Garda owned and operated van. The one in Dundalk was a private one. AGS still operate their own vans.

guil

another private one burned out tonight on the n11

sdanseo

guil wrote: »

another private one burned out tonight on the n11

Pathetic. I can absolutely see the point people have about these things (no offence to AGS but they are purely revenue collectors, nothing more in my opinion) but burning them out is just pure vandalism. I disagree with several laws, but I don't take out my frustration by breaking more of them. And with someone inside, this is once again attempted murder, tbh. Let them rot, if caught.

seanybiker

Great to hear some Prat got caught

AlekSmart

At this stage the Go-Safe consortium will most likely have to configure a set of exterior cameras to monitor their own assets.

The only other option is to have Garda protection at each active site which will play merry hell with the Contracted Budget for this scheme.

With our recession rapidly deepening,it only stands to reason that some of the normal stoic acceptance of State Revenue gathering is beginning to evaporate.

The prime mover behind improving Road Safety has to be simply Driver Education and Training,what Go-Safe represents is no more than a Commercial Business Opportunity with all of the attendant risks which such businessess endure on a daily basis,so protecting their front-line staff is now a very real issue for them.

sdanseo

AlekSmart wrote: »

At this stage the Go-Safe consortium will most likely have to configure a set of exterior cameras to monitor their own assets.

The only other option is to have Garda protection at each active site which will play merry hell with the Contracted Budget for this scheme.

With our recession rapidly deepening,it only stands to reason that some of the normal stoic acceptance of State Revenue gathering is beginning to evaporate.

The prime mover behind improving Road Safety has to be simply Driver Education and Training,what Go-Safe represents is no more than a Commercial Business Opportunity with all of the attendant risks which such businessess endure on a daily basis,so protecting their front-line staff is now a very real issue for them.

You may as well have a garda car with the same equipment so. Same use of reources.

At the end of the day, a patrol car with flashing blue lights and a Garda in a Hi-Vis with a speed gun will be much more effective at slowing people down. Put them everywhere in variable spots, not just at these toll-booths so called "accident hotspots".

guil

AlekSmart wrote: »

At this stage the Go-Safe consortium will most likely have to configure a set of exterior cameras to monitor their own assets.

The only other option is to have Garda protection at each active site which will play merry hell with the Contracted Budget for this scheme.

With our recession rapidly deepening,it only stands to reason that some of the normal stoic acceptance of State Revenue gathering is beginning to evaporate.

The prime mover behind improving Road Safety has to be simply Driver Education and Training,what Go-Safe represents is no more than a Commercial Business Opportunity with all of the attendant risks which such businessess endure on a daily basis,so protecting their front-line staff is now a very real issue for them.

they already have them front and back but i dont know if they record, next time ya pass one look just above the centre of the windsrceen on the roof

ghill

My name is Garrett Hill the person charged with this crime. It really makes me sick in this country how people are so quick to judge. Just because a person is charged with something does not mean he is guilty. There are a lot of corrupt guards on the force and if you are one of these people that think all guards are angels your an idiot. Just Google it and you will see for yourself. Guards committing armed robbery in Caragaline in Cork, Another female guard giving information off the "top secret" Garda Pulse System to gang members in Dublin about rival gangs. Sensitive information that could get a person killed. And what was she doing it for? Bags of cocaine,Another two guards beating a man on the street in Waterford and when another guard operating the CCTV saw what was happening he turned the camera away so he wouldn't record any evidence, Another guard in Cork smashed a mans face so hard he broke his jaw and some of his teeth and all while on a night out with the lads. The Judge gave him 18 months in prison, the very next day he went back to the same court and his barrister said the Judge didn't take into consideration how hard it is in prison for ex-cops. The Judge agreed and suspended the 18 months. What about the poor man who got his face smashed in? All the above are convictions not people who were only charged.

This case against me was a fit up from the start. The guards had absolutely no evidence at any time. They pursued it and blackened my name for nearly four years with no evidence. Of course then you have the fools like seanybiker and MagicSean who think that because your charged that means your guilty.

I stood trial on 25/04/2013 listed as a three day trial. Not even four hours into the trial the Judge directed the jury to find me not guilty and said that my arrest was unlawful. In the days leading up to the trial the state barrister on numerous occasions offered me a deal to plead guilty to criminal damage and they would drop the rest. I refused every time but why where they offering me a deal? This was one of there own inside the van that got burned they should have been asking for the death penalty.

Some people need to open there eyes, Guards are just normal people who will make mistakes but you have other guards who will bend or even brake the law to get what they want.

goldie fish

ghill wrote: »

My name is Garrett Hill the person charged with this crime. It really makes me sick in this country how people are so quick to judge. Just because a person is charged with something does not mean he is guilty. There are a lot of corrupt guards on the force and if you are one of these people that think all guards are angels your an idiot. Just Google it and you will see for yourself. Guards committing armed robbery in Caragaline in Cork, Another female guard giving information off the "top secret" Garda Pulse System to gang members in Dublin about rival gangs. Sensitive information that could get a person killed. And what was she doing it for? Bags of cocaine,Another two guards beating a man on the street in Waterford and when another guard operating the CCTV saw what was happening he turned the camera away so he wouldn't record any evidence, Another guard in Cork smashed a mans face so hard he broke his jaw and some of his teeth and all while on a night out with the lads. The Judge gave him 18 months in prison, the very next day he went back to the same court and his barrister said the Judge didn't take into consideration how hard it is in prison for ex-cops. The Judge agreed and suspended the 18 months. What about the poor man who got his face smashed in? All the above are convictions not people who were only charged.

This case against me was a fit up from the start. The guards had absolutely no evidence at any time. They pursued it and blackened my name for nearly four years with no evidence. Of course then you have the fools like seanybiker and MagicSean who think that because your charged that means your guilty.

I stood trial on 25/04/2013 listed as a three day trial. Not even four hours into the trial the Judge directed the jury to find me not guilty and said that my arrest was unlawful. In the days leading up to the trial the state barrister on numerous occasions offered me a deal to plead guilty to criminal damage and they would drop the rest. I refused every time but why where they offering me a deal? This was one of there own inside the van that got burned they should have been asking for the death penalty.

Some people need to open there eyes, Guards are just normal people who will make mistakes but you have other guards who will bend or even brake the law to get what they want.

So who did do it?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0426/world/man-cleared-of-throwing-petrol-bomb-at-garda-speed-trap-van-229507.html

3fullback

You may indeed be legally innocent but factually why was your fingerprints on the bottle, this is scientific/forensic evidence which is very hard to argue against?

Just because someone is legally innocent, does not mean they did not do the crime.

Zambia

Not Guilty does not Equal exonerated.

I concede Mr Hill may well not have done it but this trial proves a Garda made a mistake in the arrest not the accuseds innocence.

Had the Garda arrested Hill under a different section how would things have played out then?

However the court has decided.

discus

Did they find anyone elses fingerprints? Surely that wasn't the only evidence? Anyone could have opened a bin and taken a bottle

3fullback

discus wrote: »

Did they find anyone elses fingerprints? Surely that wasn't the only evidence? Anyone could have opened a bin and taken a bottle

Surely must have been further evidence, as what were the chances of the person they arrested fingerprints ending up matching ones on the bottle! If you get my drift.

Of course may have already been in database if Mr.Hill had prior dealings.

goldie fish

Careful now.

Zambia

3fullback wrote: »

Surely must have been as what were the chances of the person they arrested fingerprints ending up matching ones on the bottle! If you get my drift.

Of course may have already been in database if Mr.Hill had prior dealings.

Sadly as soon as the word chance comes in the case is lost.

ghill

goldie fish wrote: »

So who did do it?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0426/world/man-cleared-of-throwing-petrol-bomb-at-garda-speed-trap-van-229507.html

How do i know who done it but it was not me. The fingerprint could have been on the bottle for up to two years before it was used in the arson and there own expert would even say that. You cant date a fingerprint. The bottle was found 100 meters from my house and yes that was the only evidence. Two prosecution witnesses said the man who done it had gloves on so if that man was me how did my prints get on the bottle. They had my prints on file, so lets say they had a match to the print on the bottle after two weeks why did it take them 16 months to arrest me. This was a witch hunt from the start.

The reason it was thrown out was because of a plastic bottle being used rather than a glass one meaning the section used to detain was wrong. Once the detention is gone then there can be no trial.

AlekSmart

ghill wrote: »

How do i know who done it but it was not me. The fingerprint could have been on the bottle for up to two years before it was used in the arson and there own expert would even say that. You cant date a fingerprint. The bottle was found 100 meters from my house and yes that was the only evidence. Two prosecution witnesses said the man who done it had gloves on so if that man was me how did my prints get on the bottle. They had my prints on file, so lets say they had a match to the print on the bottle after two weeks why did it take them 16 months to arrest me. This was a witch hunt from the start.

Looks like Ciaran O Loughlin knows his criminal onions then Garett ...would you recommend him ?

Would you see this type of action as being justified at all ?

Without askin you to get TOO involved,could you perhaps outline WHY the Gardai would decide on mounting a Witch Hunt against You in particular ?

SB2013

Hopefully the judges decision can be appealed successfully. Failing that a civil action should be brought against the arsonist.

Sempai

ghill wrote: »

My name is Garrett Hill the person charged with this crime. It really makes me sick in this country how people are so quick to judge. Just because a person is charged with something does not mean he is guilty. There are a lot of corrupt guards on the force and if you are one of these people that think all guards are angels your an idiot. Just Google it and you will see for yourself. Guards committing armed robbery in Caragaline in Cork, Another female guard giving information off the "top secret" Garda Pulse System to gang members in Dublin about rival gangs. Sensitive information that could get a person killed. And what was she doing it for? Bags of cocaine,Another two guards beating a man on the street in Waterford and when another guard operating the CCTV saw what was happening he turned the camera away so he wouldn't record any evidence, Another guard in Cork smashed a mans face so hard he broke his jaw and some of his teeth and all while on a night out with the lads. The Judge gave him 18 months in prison, the very next day he went back to the same court and his barrister said the Judge didn't take into consideration how hard it is in prison for ex-cops. The Judge agreed and suspended the 18 months. What about the poor man who got his face smashed in? All the above are convictions not people who were only charged.

This case against me was a fit up from the start. The guards had absolutely no evidence at any time. They pursued it and blackened my name for nearly four years with no evidence. Of course then you have the fools like seanybiker and MagicSean who think that because your charged that means your guilty.

I stood trial on 25/04/2013 listed as a three day trial. Not even four hours into the trial the Judge directed the jury to find me not guilty and said that my arrest was unlawful. In the days leading up to the trial the state barrister on numerous occasions offered me a deal to plead guilty to criminal damage and they would drop the rest. I refused every time but why where they offering me a deal? This was one of there own inside the van that got burned they should have been asking for the death penalty.

Some people need to open there eyes, Guards are just normal people who will make mistakes but you have other guards who will bend or even brake the law to get what they want.

So is it Garrett or Gareth? All papers reporting Gareth, which makes me think that this could be bogey! Or papers are wrong :rolleyes:

goldie fish

ghill wrote: »

How do i know who done it but it was not me. The fingerprint could have been on the bottle for up to two years before it was used in the arson and there own expert would even say that. You cant date a fingerprint. The bottle was found 100 meters from my house and yes that was the only evidence. Two prosecution witnesses said the man who done it had gloves on so if that man was me how did my prints get on the bottle. They had my prints on file, so lets say they had a match to the print on the bottle after two weeks why did it take them 16 months to arrest me. This was a witch hunt from the start.

Why did they have your prints on file?

ghill

AlekSmart wrote: »

Looks like Ciaran O Loughlin knows his criminal onions then Garett ...would you recommend him ?

Would you see this type of action as being justified at all ?

Without askin you to get TOO involved,could you perhaps outline WHY the Gardai would decide on mounting a Witch Hunt against You in particular ?

I would recommend Ciaran O Loughlin. He only took on my case two days before the trial started and he done an excellent job.

What do you mean when you say ' Would you see this type of action as being justified at all ?'

Witch Hunt was the wrong words to use, I should have said scapegoat. Go to the crime section on the Cork Echo website and search for Blarney Co. Cork or Google it over the last five years. A lot of crime was happening, Serious crime and nobody was even getting arrested never mind charged. The residents of the village were putting pressure on gardai to do something about it. When the arson attack on the van happened the guards knew fairly fast there was a print on the bottle and it was mine. Why did they not come forward straight away and arrest me and charge me and tell anyone that would listen they got there man. I'll tell you why they didn't think it was me. Then 16 months later when they realized they had nobody else they arrest and charge me. I am 32 years old with a wife and 4 children. I have no time or more important no interest in doing this reckless act of thuggery. It just makes me mad to think some people are always going to say 'He got away with it' instead of 'He wasn't guilty'.
I have 1 conviction in the last 15 years for handling stolen goods. I'm a long way from being a hardened criminal.

foreign wrote: »

The reason it was thrown out was because of a plastic bottle being used rather than a glass one meaning the section used to detain was wrong. Once the detention is gone then there can be no trial.

It was the section used to arrest that was unlawful which means the taking of my prints was unlawful but that didn't mean end of trial. If they had more evidence that didn't come from the arrest they could have carried on.

Sempai wrote: »

So is it Garrett or Gareth? All papers reporting Gareth, which makes me think that this could be bogey! Or papers are wrong

It's Garrett, Papers have it wrong. You don't miss a trick Sherlock......IDIOT

discus

SB2013 wrote: »

Hopefully the judges decision can be appealed successfully. Failing that a civil action should be brought against the arsonist.

Get a life mate.

Play To Kill

SB2013 wrote: »

Hopefully the judges decision can be appealed successfully. Failing that a civil action should be brought against the arsonist.

I'd prefer if the guards learn from this instead, a finger print on a bottle seems like a very flimsy piece of evidence on its own to charge someone, it would be a different story if there was a lot of evidence pointing to the suspect but it doesn't seem like there was. The guy deserves the benefit of doubt and to be treated as innocent if thats all the evidence the guards could manage to gather.

ardle1

Dont agree with that s@*t,,am up for all sorts! we'r all human,, they try to catch us speeding,we try to avoid speeding or not get caught speeding,, dirty number plates full beams blah blah blah,, do the maths.... if your gonna get caught doin something illegal make sure it's worth it...and everyone gets home in one piece,, Robbin Hood and all that,,, that's the way I roll anyway...

3fullback

Play To Kill wrote: »

I'd prefer if the guards learn from this instead, a finger print on a bottle seems like a very flimsy piece of evidence on its own to charge someone, it would be a different story if there was a lot of evidence pointing to the suspect but it doesn't seem like there was. The guy deserves the benefit of doubt and to be treated as innocent if thats all the evidence the guards could manage to gather.

Guys all the Gardai do is investigate and collect evidence. The decision to continue to bring the case before the courts is in the hands of the DPP.

Who don't continue on a whim!

SB2013

Play To Kill wrote: »

I'd prefer if the guards learn from this instead, a finger print on a bottle seems like a very flimsy piece of evidence on its own to charge someone, it would be a different story if there was a lot of evidence pointing to the suspect but it doesn't seem like there was. The guy deserves the benefit of doubt and to be treated as innocent if thats all the evidence the guards could manage to gather.

Sometimes a fingerprint is all the evidence there is. Obviously there would be other circumstantial evidence to go along with it but the world doesn't work like CSI where you find a smoking gun at every crime scene.

King Ludvig

Play To Kill wrote: »

I'd prefer if the guards learn from this instead, a finger print on a bottle seems like a very flimsy piece of evidence on its own to charge someone, it would be a different story if there was a lot of evidence pointing to the suspect but it doesn't seem like there was. The guy deserves the benefit of doubt and to be treated as innocent if thats all the evidence the guards could manage to gather.

The DPP decides whether or not someone is to be charged and what offence they should be charged with. Obviously she felt there was sufficient evidence for a trial. That does not mean the accused is guilty, just that there was enough evidence there to be put before a jury to decide.

Shield

Moderator comment:

Guys I have just had to issue warnings for people failing to stick to the golden rule: "Attack the post, not the poster". It's simple - take a point you don't agree with, say why, and give your own opinion. Sometime in these situations, there are no rights and no wrongs but that doesn't mean you lower yourself into calling someone names.

I believe this thread has run its course, as it's years old and has nowhere left to go. If someone else is arrested then someone can start another thread and link back to this one for specifics.