Public Order

excellent

Hi all

I am not seeking legal advice, just some info.

I was charged with two offences under the Public Order act:

• Danger to myself or others
• Refused to give name and address

I went to court (CCJ) and the judge postponed it. I entered a plea of not guilty.

Is there a way to find out what the new date is? In my haste I am not sure of the correct date.

Should I get a solicitor?

I have no previous convictions, am I likely to get one due to this?

Cheers

source

excellent wrote: »

Hi all

I am not seeking legal advice, just some info.

I was charged with two offences under the Public Order act:

• Danger to myself or others
• Refused to give name and address

I went to court and the judge postponed it. I entered a plea of not guilty.

Is there a way to find out what the new date is? In my haste I am not sure of the correct date.

Should I get a solicitor?

I have no previous convictions, am I likely to get one due to this?

Cheers

Contact the district court office and they should be able to tell you your next date. You got charged for Section 4 (Intoxication in a public place) and Section 24 (failing to give name and address).

The charges are pretty cut and dry, you were either drunk and refused to give your details/gave wrong details, or you didn't. Usually first offence for public order is either a fine or donation to the court poor box.

MagicSean

You could ask the Garda.

ResearchWill

Get a solicitor, you may be entitled to legal aid after the recent SC ruling. If you fight and are found guilty you will have little chance of POA. Did you get copy statements from Garda.

excellent

ResearchWill wrote: »

Get a solicitor, you may be entitled to legal aid after the recent SC ruling. If you fight and are found guilty you will have little chance of POA. Did you get copy statements from Garda.

I did. What was the recent SC ruling?

ResearchWill

excellent wrote: »

I did. What was the recent SC ruling?

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/e387446bdd408350802578dc004cacd9?OpenDocument

Sets the test for legal aid, the SC said that a person who has never been before the courts before, and is now before the court for a minor offence where no jail time is possible, may be entitled to legal aid.

excellent

ResearchWill wrote: »

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/e387446bdd408350802578dc004cacd9?OpenDocument

Sets the test for legal aid, the SC said that a person who has never been before the courts before, and is now before the court for a minor offence where no jail time is possible, may be entitled to legal aid.

Thank you, that is helpful.

MagicSean

Are you sure you got statements? Are you sure it wasn't a precis of evidence?

excellent

Sorry, yes it was precis.

excellent

I contacted the CCJ office and got the date, the 10th of this month, which sooner then I thought. Is it possible to get a solicitor on such short notice?

MagicSean

Yes. Just go to the district court tomorrow and look for one that impresses you and approach him.

Incidentally, I don't know how much of this you are going to fight but a good solicitor should be able to get one of those charges struck out in exchange for a plea to the other. A really good solicitor will get one struck out and an adult caution or fixed charge penalty for the other. That's assuming you have never been in trouble before.

mcgarrett

MagicSean wrote: »

A really good solicitor will get one struck out and an adult caution or fixed charge penalty for the other. That's assuming you have never been in trouble before.

How does that work?

Zambia

Its what they do basically the solicitor is like a real estate broker for your freedom.

He is trying to get you the best possible deal to keep it.

Most people who come to court commited the offence the only question left is what its going to cost them.

mcgarrett

But how can you get an adult caution or fixed charge penalty for something before the court?

MagicSean

mcgarrett wrote: »

But how can you get an adult caution or fixed charge penalty for something before the court?

Section 4 of the Public Order Act is eligible for both. If you have no previous your solicitor could try to come to an agreement with the Garda court presenter to strike out the 24 and also try and convince the judge that you will accept an adult caution. Not all judges will go for it so its important to get a solicitor who knows what he is doing. Of course if you were a wanker to the Garda on the night he may object so again it is important to have a local solicitor who knows the Gardaí, court presenter and judge.

mcgarrett

Just thought it might be beyond the stage for adult caution, doesn't that have to be ok'd by super or insp?

MagicSean

mcgarrett wrote: »

Just thought it might be beyond the stage for adult caution, doesn't that have to be ok'd by super or insp?

Yes. The court presenter is usually an inspector.

source

mcgarrett wrote: »

Just thought it might be beyond the stage for adult caution, doesn't that have to be ok'd by super or insp?

I've had it happen, that a judge directed a person who had refused to accept the caution in the station, be given the benefit of the caution, as he had regretted not taking it and pleaded guilty at te earliest possible opportunity.

theAwakening

MagicSean wrote: »

Section 4 of the Public Order Act is eligible for both. If you have no previous your solicitor could try to come to an agreement with the Garda court presenter to strike out the 24 and also try and convince the judge that you will accept an adult caution. Not all judges will go for it so its important to get a solicitor who knows what he is doing. Of course if you were a wanker to the Garda on the night he may object so again it is important to have a local solicitor who knows the Gardaí, court presenter and judge.

A fixed charge notice does not apply to section 24 offences.
Considering your "not guilty" plea, I assume you have a grievance with the charges. It is a requirement that in order to be eligible for an Adult Caution you admit to the scheduled offence(s) & consent to being cautioned. If you have previously come to garda attention for criminal offences you most likely wont be offered the adult caution.

Charging offenders with both Section 4 & 24 is somewhat a contradiction, however must judges will convict on both if the garda evidence is solid.

If you had pleaded "guilty" the first day you would most likely have received the probation act / struck out on poor box donation.

source

theAwakening wrote: »

MagicSean wrote: »

Section 4 of the Public Order Act is eligible for both. If you have no previous your solicitor could try to come to an agreement with the Garda court presenter to strike out the 24 and also try and convince the judge that you will accept an adult caution. Not all judges will go for it so its important to get a solicitor who knows what he is doing. Of course if you were a wanker to the Garda on the night he may object so again it is important to have a local solicitor who knows the Gardaí, court presenter and judge.

A fixed charge notice does not apply to section 24 offences.
Considering your "not guilty" plea, I assume you have a grievance with the charges. It is a requirement that in order to be eligible for an Adult Caution you admit to the scheduled offence(s) & consent to being cautioned. If you have previously come to garda attention for criminal offences you most likely wont be offered the adult caution.

Charging offenders with both Section 4 & 24 is somewhat a contradiction, however must judges will convict on both if the garda evidence is solid.

If you had pleaded "guilty" the first day you would most likely have received the probation act / struck out on poor box donation.

I really fail to see how charging with intoxication and failing to give details is a contradiction.

Sections 4 & 8 yes I'd agree with you, but not 4 and 24.

theAwakening

source wrote: »

I really fail to see how charging with intoxication and failing to give details is a contradiction.

Sections 4 & 8 yes I'd agree with you, but not 4 and 24.

if the prosecution give detailed evidence that someone is intoxicated to such an extent as to be a danger to themselves and others (Section 4) (e.g. incoherent, falling asleep on a roadway, oblivious to their present surrounding etc.)....I agree, it is somewhat a contradiction to also prosecute them for failing to comply with a legal direction in that state (Section 8)...but the usual defences are that, similarly, to make a lawful demand of them provide their name/address, having already informed them in ordinary language of the failure/refusal to comply...is a contradiction along the same lines.

simply, they're either too pissed to know what's going on, in which case they cannot be expected to comprehend the instructions & possible implications of legal requirements made by gardai to them at the time, and should be arrested for their own safety immediately...

or, they are coherent, able to provide a name & address, and comply with a legal direction to desist and/or leave the vicinity immediately....in which case the evidence given by the garda that he was, at that same time, intoxicated so such an extent as to be a danger to themselves and others, would appear to contradict itself.

I agree obviously that a very intoxicated person will still be able to recite his name/adress, but that in itself, retracts from the evidence of the extent of the accused's intoxication.

source

theAwakening wrote: »

source wrote: »

I really fail to see how charging with intoxication and failing to give details is a contradiction.

Sections 4 & 8 yes I'd agree with you, but not 4 and 24.

if the prosecution give detailed evidence that someone is intoxicated to such an extent as to be a danger to themselves and others (Section 4) (e.g. incoherent, falling asleep on a roadway, oblivious to their present surrounding etc.)....I agree, it is somewhat a contradiction to also prosecute them for failing to comply with a legal direction in that state (Section 8)...but the usual defences are that, similarly, to make a lawful demand of them provide their name/address, having already informed them in ordinary language of the failure/refusal to comply...is a contradiction along the same lines.

simply, they're either too pissed to know what's going on, in which case they cannot be expected to comprehend the instructions & possible implications of legal requirements made by gardai to them at the time, and should be arrested for their own safety immediately...

or, they are coherent, able to provide a name & address, and comply with a legal direction to desist and/or leave the vicinity immediately....in which case the evidence given by the garda that he was, at that same time, intoxicated so such an extent as to be a danger to themselves and others, would appear to contradict itself.

in the very unlikely case of a drunk person being fully coherent and providing their details to gardai, but at the same time unable to even stand, it may not be a contradicition.

Ah but there is a difference between being incapable (which is what you've outlined) and refusing/giving a false or misleading name and address.

For example if someone is intoxicated, and has the wherewithal to provide a false name, that would show they're capable of understanding the situation. Likewise if they refuse to give the details.

If however they're so drunk they can't speak then charging for 24 would be both ridiculous and excessive.

The definition of intoxication in the act, states that the person must, to a reasonable person, be a danger to themselves or others. Hence why I said about section 8 being contradictory, you cannot tell a person who is a danger to themself and others to leave the area, because the duty of care for the person is now on the member who believes they are intoxicated.

Zambia

Drunkness is not a defence to a crime. If it was then if you blew .275 on the EBT you could argue I was so pissed I did not know I was driving your honour.

Plus if the subject could speak at all "**** off garda and leave me in this doorway" well then he could provide name and address. I am sure if the garda did not expect a response he would not ask the question.

theAwakening

agreed.

excellent

How would one prove they were not a danger to themselves or others?

And if that was proven surly section 24 no longer applies?

source

excellent wrote: »

How would one prove they were not a danger to themselves or others?

And if that was proven surly section 24 no longer applies?

That's something that you need to discuss with a solicitor, as we're getting close to advice.

excellent

source wrote: »

That's something that you need to discuss with a solicitor, as we're getting close to advice.

Agreed. But once this is concluded I would like to discuss that.

MagicSean

excellent wrote: »

How would one prove they were not a danger to themselves or others?

And if that was proven surly section 24 no longer applies?

It's for the Garda to provethaw offence in his evidence. The accused has to disprove it.

spurs2010

A good solicitor should beat the charges if you are not guilty. The adult caution or probation act will apply if you apologise and are guilty. Only a bad lawyer advises the guilty man to plead guilty. Do not go with any solicitor who approaches you they are not solicitors just touting solicitors ......

spurs2010

apologies meant not guilty man etc