Motorcycle helmets in courts

Eru

comeandsee wrote: »

This is unusual behaviour. What is one to take from it ? Their Commissioner or at least their Chief Superintendent should make inquiries into it and ease the public confusion as to why they all arrived in helmets.

My dear god, are you actually suggesting that because they are while in work, Gardai that there should be a law against dressing themselves in whatever they choose to wear? Seriously? That it should be punishable for someone to wear a motorcycle helmet? Should this fashion law be for everyone, just Gardai or people who wear helmets?

Can someone please slap me because I must be going mad.

As for perception, that's exactly why we DON'T allow trial by media and public opinion, because then people would be found guilty based on how they dress. Thankfully a Judge will look at the facts of the case to see are they actually guilty of a crime and not just annoying journalists by protecting their own identities.

And PR? PR for who? You think people on trial and possible facing jail give a **** about PR for AGS? In fact, what in gods name does PR have to do with a criminal case anyway?

Geansai

Well someone must have said something to them (or perhaps they thought better of it themselves), because the next day they all arrived in court wearing suits and allowed themselves to be photographed by the press.

Hooch

Geansai wrote: »

Well someone must have said something to them (or perhaps they thought better of it themselves), because the next day they all arrived in court wearing suits and allowed themselves to be photographed by the press.

Or of course they decided not to bother taking the motorbike in the rain that day???

savagecabbages

Eru wrote: »

As for perception, that's exactly why we DON'T allow trial by media and public opinion, because then people would be found guilty based on how they dress. Thankfully a Judge will look at the facts of the case to see are they actually guilty of a crime and not just annoying journalists by protecting their own identities.

And PR? PR for who? You think people on trial and possible facing jail give a **** about PR for AGS? In fact, what in gods name does PR have to do with a criminal case anyway?

I know the judge wont care what people are wearing turning up to court, its not a fashion show. My issue is with the members giving a bad impression to the public they are supposed to be serving. Next week they could all be cleared of everything and back on duty serving the same public they made a show out of themselves in front of by pulling said stunt. That, in my eyes is where PR comes into it.

comeandsee

savagecabbages wrote: »

I know the judge wont care what people are wearing turning up to court, its not a fashion show. My issue is with the members giving a bad impression to the public they are supposed to be serving. Next week they could all be cleared of everything and back on duty serving the same public they made a show out of themselves in front of by pulling said stunt. That, in my eyes is where PR comes into it.

It was a sorry move. It definitely didn't do them or the organisation that they are employed with any favours. They are employed to provide a service to the public and that service in part, is to hold others to account. I'm sorry to say that they failed to account for themselves on that day. No matter what anyone says it has been a bad public relations move... why? Were still talking about it! I've heard members of the public talk about it too. I wont comment on it again and I hope it never happens again.

Eru

savagecabbages wrote: »

I know the judge wont care what people are wearing turning up to court, its not a fashion show. My issue is with the members giving a bad impression to the public they are supposed to be serving. Next week they could all be cleared of everything and back on duty serving the same public they made a show out of themselves in front of by pulling said stunt. That, in my eyes is where PR comes into it.

By that thinking, you coming here and judging people based on clothing reflects on your employer? cmon now, if this was any other occupation you wouldnt be making these comments and you know it.

What a Garda chooses to wear while off duty is no different to how you dress when not working, or a bus driver, taximan, tesco cashier, ryanair flight attendant...................

Geansai

Eru wrote: »

By that thinking, you coming here and judging people based on clothing reflects on your employer? cmon now, if this was any other occupation you wouldnt be making these comments and you know it.

What a Garda chooses to wear while off duty is no different to how you dress when not working, or a bus driver, taximan, tesco cashier, ryanair flight attendant...................

Unfortunately the people in question are not bus drivers, taximen, tesco cashiers or ryanair flight attenents. They are Gardaí. And it is for this reason that this case is in the news. Not many other reletively minor assaults would make the news for three weeks running.

Of course these people can wear what they like in their own time, and I have no doubt that underneath the motorcycle gear they had appropriate attire for Court. However, as Gardaí serving the public, they should also be held accountable to the public. All defendents involved pleaded "Not Guilty" and so should have nothing to be embarressed about or hide.

Also, anyone who claims that the only reason they came on motorcycle and wearing the relevant clothing, in my opinion, is only trying to fool themselves. It was a clear attempt to hide their faces. Although understandable, I believe it is inappropraite for a garda to be doing so, when defending his actions whilst on duty.

bravestar

Geansai wrote: »

Although understandable, I believe it is inappropraite for a garda to be doing so, when defending his actions whilst on duty.

I do not believe it is inappropriate. I believe it is inappropriate to stick cameras in peoples faces, regardless of where or when it is. I believe it is inappropriate to give more air time to something just because a Garda was involved. Allegations of anything can have serious consequences for a person regardless of how true or false they are found out to be. If you or anyone else wants to know what those Gardai look like and really care that much, go to court and have a look.

goldie fish

Gardaí convicted in Waterford trial

Friday, August 05, 2011 - 08:09 PM


Two Gardaí have been convicted at Waterford Circuit Court in connection with an assault in the city last year.

A jury of five men and seven women found Garda Daniel Hickey guilty of assault causing harm to Anthony Holness on New Street in January 2010.

Garda John Burke was also found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

It was alleged that he deliberately moved a CCTV camera away from New Street as officers attempted to arrest Mr Holness.

Sergeant Alan Kissane was found not guilty of assault causing harm.

The jury is still deliberating in the case of Sergeant Martha McEnerney who is also accused of assault.

All four had denied the charges.


Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/gardai-convicted-in-waterford-trial-515559.html#ixzz1UBm3OdxA

Ruen

bravestar wrote: »

I do not believe it is inappropriate. I believe it is inappropriate to stick cameras in peoples faces, regardless of where or when it is. I believe it is inappropriate to give more air time to something just because a Garda was involved. Allegations of anything can have serious consequences for a person regardless of how true or false they are found out to be. If you or anyone else wants to know what those Gardai look like and really care that much, go to court and have a look.

It's totally appropriate to take pictures, ever heard of freedom of the press?

A Garda is employed by the irish people and, not just your average public servant, is entrusted with additional rights, responsibilities and legal authority. As such when allegations are made against a Garda that they committed a criminal act while on duty as a functionary of the state I believe it is most definitely in the public interest that this receive more air time compared to the same charges being leveled against a shop assistant for instance.
If they are being vested with legal powers and the authority of the state they should be held to account in as stringent a manner as any citizen if not more so.

Sully

I still don't understand how Gda. John Burke was preventing the course of justice - why wouldn't he just move the camera down the next street if he was trying to cover it up? It was his recording that got the other chap convicted and this whole case!

Seemed like a good point, but saying that we don't have half of the facts so probably more to it than that..

bravestar

Ruen wrote: »

It's totally appropriate to take pictures, ever heard of freedom of the press?

A Garda is employed by the irish people and, not just your average public servant, is entrusted with additional rights, responsibilities and legal authority. As such when allegations are made against a Garda that they committed a criminal act while on duty as a functionary of the state I believe it is most definitely in the public interest that this receive more air time compared to the same charges being leveled against a shop assistant for instance.
If they are being vested with legal powers and the authority of the state they should be held to account in as stringent a manner as any citizen if not more so.

Ever heard of a right to privacy? Ah right, I get your point, so Gardai should be treated differently than everyone else just because they are Gardai, even when they are off duty. I hope the staff in Tesco's remember this when all the off duty Gardai are doing their weekly shop and politely tell them that because they are Gardai and special they dont have to pay as much as everyone else :rolleyes:

savagecabbages

bravestar wrote: »

Ever heard of a right to privacy? Ah right, I get your point, so Gardai should be treated differently than everyone else just because they are Gardai, even when they are off duty. I hope the staff in Tesco's remember this when all the off duty Gardai are doing their weekly shop and politely tell them that because they are Gardai and special they dont have to pay as much as everyone else :rolleyes:

Its a weak argument to pull out the right to privacy card here. Everyone has a right to privacy- we all know this. The four defendants here did themselves or the force they represent absolutely no favours by pulling that stunt. Yes they had every right to turn up the way they did, but in my eyes it was foolish and had half the country talking about it.

Compare the similar case in Dublin where the defendants turned up to court as one would expect them to. -All forgotten about already while this is still rambling on...

Ruen

bravestar wrote: »

Ever heard of a right to privacy? Ah right, I get your point, so Gardai should be treated differently than everyone else just because they are Gardai, even when they are off duty. I hope the staff in Tesco's remember this when all the off duty Gardai are doing their weekly shop and politely tell them that because they are Gardai and special they dont have to pay as much as everyone else :rolleyes:

I have heard of right to privacy but the press and anybody with a camera for that matter has a right to take pictures of anyone or anything in a public place, we don't live in North Korea. And if it is in the public interest you can expect that the press will take pictures of people coming to and going from court when reporting on the case.
Regarding your point about Gardai being treated differently while off duty I'd remind you that the people in question were on duty when they allegedly committed these disgusting acts, two of whom were just convicted by the way which means they are convicted criminals in addition to being Gardai.

bravestar

Ruen wrote: »

bravestar wrote: »

Ever heard of a right to privacy? Ah right, I get your point, so Gardai should be treated differently than everyone else just because they are Gardai, even when they are off duty. I hope the staff in Tesco's remember this when all the off duty Gardai are doing their weekly shop and politely tell them that because they are Gardai and special they dont have to pay as much as everyone else :rolleyes:

I have heard of right to privacy but the press and anybody with a camera for that matter has a right to take pictures of anyone or anything in a public place, we don't live in North Korea. And if it is in the public interest you can expect that the press will take pictures of people coming to and going from court when reporting on the case.
Regarding your point about Gardai being treated differently while off duty I'd remind you that the people in question were on duty when they allegedly committed these disgusting acts, two of whom were just convicted by the way which means they are convicted criminals in addition to being Gardai.

The outcome of the case has no bearing on this thread. Nor does them being on duty at the time of the alleged offence. They were off duty when they arrived to court to represent themselves and are entitled to wear whatever they want, up to and including Groucho Marx disguises, gimp suits and slayer t shirts when coming to and from court.

Ruen

Just thought I'd point out that two of the Gardai are convicted criminals.
Anyway nobody was denying they have a right to wear helmets just that it's a scummy looking thing to do.

goldie fish

Ruen wrote: »

Just thought I'd point out that two of the Gardai are convicted criminals.

Tecnically, not until they have been sentenced to anything other than Probation/bound to the peace. If they get probation, after the period has lapsed, they do not have a criminal record, as sutch.

Ruen wrote: »

Anyway nobody was denying they have a right to wear helmets just that it's a scummy looking thing to do.

Wear helmets, or use a motorcycle? Or both?

Roman Emperor

Over the years I've seen (on TV) many defendants arriving to court hiding behind various disguises.Newspapers,coats,briefcases,umbrellas, even their hands and in Martin Cahill's case a balaclava.I've never seen someone hiding in a helmet before. Then one evening I turn on the news and there's not just one, but four of them hiding in their helmets! What a remarkable coincidence.

Ruen

goldie fish wrote: »

Ruen wrote: »

Just thought I'd point out that two of the Gardai are convicted criminals.

Tecnically, not until they have been sentenced to anything other than Probation/bound to the peace. If they get probation, after the period has lapsed, they do not have a criminal record, as sutch.

Ruen wrote: »

Anyway nobody was denying they have a right to wear helmets just that it's a scummy looking thing to do.

Wear helmets, or use a motorcycle? Or both?

Let's not be pedantic here they've been convicted by a jury, I'm not saying they're "convicts" just convicted criminals regardless of sentence. No need for you to be an apologist for known criminals.

Regarding the dress choice, we all know what was going on there and not denying their right just pointing out the scummyness.

goldie fish

Ruen wrote: »

Let's not be pedantic here they've been convicted by a jury, I'm not saying they're "convicts" just convicted criminals regardless of sentence. No need for you to be an apologist for known criminals.

Regarding the dress choice, we all know what was going on there and not denying their right just pointing out the scummyness.

We all know?
Do We?
You seem to have your mind made up.
I hope for your sake you never get into a situation where you end up in court, get probation, and then try to seek employment as a "convicted criminal".

vicwatson

Agree the helmets suck from a PR perspective , a pair of Y fronts over their faces would have been preferable to the helmets.

Or Mickey Mouse Boxer Shorts LOL

I'm +1 on the wearing of the helmets, I saw the footage and although nothing illegal about it it did look a bit odd, they were filmed up until they went through the doors of the court with helmets intact, all arriving off the same bike (wonder was it also the same helmet they all wore!), I'm led to believe there is an unwritten rule about filming in the court foyer, and that is is that it's just not done.

Anyhow two of them are convicted of a crime now (so that makes them convicted criminals right?).

ResearchWill

goldie fish wrote: »

Tecnically, not until they have been sentenced to anything other than Probation/bound to the peace. If they get probation, after the period has lapsed, they do not have a criminal record, as sutch.


Wear helmets, or use a motorcycle? Or both?

In circuit court offender can only be discharged conditionally, so still carries a conviction. It is only in the district court that an offender can have the charges dismissed on conviction, and therefore have no conviction. Relevant legislation is below. Section 1(1)(i) for district court section 1(2) for circuit court. Also ireland does not yet have a spent convictions act, but such bill is before the Dail.

http://www.probation.ie/pws/websitepublishing.nsf/attachmentsbytitle/Probation+of+Offenders+Act+1907/$file/Probation+of+Offenders+Act+1907.pdf

goldie fish

I didn't realise we had no legislation drawn up in the history of the state on this, however, to be pedantic, my understanding is the circuit court can only impose a conditional discharge on appeal, and not when the case has not been heard in a district court.(as is the case here)
Thus, those involved in this case are entitled to the full range of possible sentences, including that which would have been imposed in the district court. i.e Bound to the peace/probation

ResearchWill

goldie fish wrote: »

I didn't realise we had no legislation drawn up in the history of the state on this, however, to be pedantic, my understanding is the circuit court can only impose a conditional discharge on appeal, and not when the case has not been heard in a district court.(as is the case here)
Thus, those involved in this case are entitled to the full range of possible sentences, including that which would have been imposed in the district court. i.e Bound to the peace/probation

Yes you are correct the circuit court can dismiss when it is acting as an appeal court from the district court as it's jurisdiction is that of the District Court. In this case the matter was on indictment that is a serious matter heard before a jury, then the only probation option is a conditional discharge on entering a bond and agreeing that you will serve the sentence if called upon.

Ruen

goldie fish wrote: »

Ruen wrote: »

Let's not be pedantic here they've been convicted by a jury, I'm not saying they're "convicts" just convicted criminals regardless of sentence. No need for you to be an apologist for known criminals.

Regarding the dress choice, we all know what was going on there and not denying their right just pointing out the scummyness.

We all know?
Do We?
You seem to have your mind made up.
I hope for your sake you never get into a situation where you end up in court, get probation, and then try to seek employment as a "convicted criminal".

If that happened I wouldn't expect a career as a Garda. Also I don't intend to put my foot on an already incapacitated and restrained persons neck or try to cover up such an endeavour but thanks for your unconditional support if I do.

goldie fish

Ruen wrote: »

If that happened I wouldn't expect a career as a Garda. Also I don't intend to put my foot on an already incapacitated and restrained persons neck or try to cover up such an endeavour but thanks for your unconditional support if I do.

I wouldnt employ you.
You spend too much time on the internet :P

Ruen

goldie fish wrote: »

We all know?
Do We?

Yes we do and if you think the demeanour of them two crooks and their mates is any coincidence you have some seriously blinkered judgement.