Citizens arrest

Gannicus

Does citizens arrest exist in ireland.

Just had a phone call from a guy I work with and he told me he was being charged with assault. Back story (all based on what he said now)

He was driving to work and there were 2 cars beside each other (2 lane road) ahead of him. the one in the left lane swerved and narrowly missed the one directly in of him (no damage done, nobody injured). the 2 cars stopped at the lights and the male passenger in the car right in front of his got out opened the door of the car that swerved and aggressively tried to pull the elderly man from that car out of it. My friend got out and took him away and pinned him to the car until the Garda came and they took statements.

He had a knock on the door today and one of the Garda involved said that the bloke who tried to pull the elderly man from the car is pressing assault charges as he claims: maliciously threw him on the ground and forced him to stay there. apparently my mate had to go to the station and give a whole new statement.

is there any case to be made for reasonable force or citizens arrest based on the initial incident and how he was possibly a danger to the elderly man.?

MagicSean

AFAIK the defence of self defence applies to defending other persons, and would cover a situation like this. I'm surprised he's been summonsed to be honest. A good solicitor should be able to handle this easily.

There is no cause for citizens arrest in the case you describe.

Gannicus

MagicSean wrote: »

AFAIK the defence of self defence applies to defending other persons, and would cover a situation like this. I'm surprised he's been summonsed to be honest. A good solicitor should be able to handle this easily.

There is no cause for citizens arrest in the case you describe.

but does citizens arrest exist in Ireland?

Zambia

Giving your friend a defence to assault could be deemed as legal advice.

However as the Garda came and took a new statement it is probably to address the claims in interview by the accused that he himself was assaulted.

Just because this idiot is pressing charges does not mean charges will be brought against your friend.

There is a belief in Ireland that if you do the right thing the Garda are out to get you. They are not. As long as your actions are reasonable in the circumstances.

In the very odd event your friend is charged a solicitor will see him right.

I doubt your friend will be charged given by what you have written.

Zambia

Yes its how security guards arrest people

Zambia

MagicSean wrote: »

AFAIK the defence of self defence applies to defending other persons, and would cover a situation like this. I'm surprised he's been summonsed to be honest. A good solicitor should be able to handle this easily.

There is no cause for citizens arrest in the case you describe.

That is a citizens arrest the bloke was restrained till he could be handed to police. There is no mention of a summons just a new statement

Mr. Incognito

Zambia wrote: »

Yes its how security guards arrest people

This is untrue.

The reason that the Bouncing industry in Ireland was cleaned up was because a lot of Bouncers were being sued, rightly, for assault and unlawful detentions,

Gannicus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This is untrue.

The reason that the Bouncing industry in Ireland was cleaned up was because a lot of Bouncers were being sued, rightly, for assault and unlawful detentions,

I agree. I was a member of the bouncer industry a few years ago. it was farsical at best. the amount of people getting a sly dig or kick when being removed from the establishment.

Marcusm

Zambia wrote: »

That is a citizens arrest the bloke was restrained till he could be handed to police. There is no mention of a summons just a new statement

NOt sure that it would be a lawful citizens arrest; would the purported offence possibly involve a sentence of 5 years or longer.

Zambia

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This is untrue.

The reason that the Bouncing industry in Ireland was cleaned up was because a lot of Bouncers were being sued, rightly, for assault and unlawful detentions,

So if someone is murdered in front of you you think you have no power to arrest the murderer and hold them for Gardai?

Zambia

Marcusm wrote: »

NOt sure that it would be a lawful citizens arrest; would the purported offence possibly involve a sentence of 5 years or longer.

Oh good piont I forgot that however

“Any person who assaults another person with intent to cause bodily harm or to commit an indictable offence shall be guilty of an offence”.

A person convicted of this offence could face a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and or term of imprisonment for up to five years.

ResearchWill

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0014/sec0004.html#sec4

Section 4 of the 1997 Act deals with it. Arestable offence is one that involves 5 years or more on indictment, which is in fact a lot of crimes carry a max of 5 or more.

monkeypants

Big Steve wrote: »

opened the door of the car that swerved and aggressively tried to pull the elderly man from that car out of it.

As a layperson, it's difficult to establish intent, but that sounds like attempted carjacking, kidnapping, maybe attempted murder.

ResearchWill

monkeypants wrote: »

As a layperson, it's difficult to establish intent, but that sounds like attempted carjacking, kidnapping, maybe attempted murder.

Section 3 and 4 of bon fatal offences against the person act 1997 carry either 5 or more, it would be safe to assume the person thought the other person was going to assault causing either harm or serious harm.

MagicSean

An arrestable offence has not been committed in this situation so there is no option of citizens arrest.

seamus

ResearchWill wrote: »

Section 4 of the 1997 Act deals with it. Arestable offence is one that involves 5 years or more on indictment, which is in fact a lot of crimes carry a max of 5 or more.

It also requires however that the person carrying out the arrest has cause to believe that the offender would avoid or is avoiding arrest.

There's a simple litmus test for it - "Did you ask the person to stop and wait for a Garda to arrive?".
If you didn't, then you have no cause to instantly jump in and use force to arrest them.

monkeypants wrote: »

As a layperson, it's difficult to establish intent, but that sounds like attempted carjacking, kidnapping, maybe attempted murder.

It sounds like attempted common assault. Carjacking, kidnapping and attempted murder? That's some imagination you have there

I'm not saying there's no "citizen's arrest" defence in this case, but I think it would be quickly and easily defeated by any semi-competent barrister or solicitor.

His defence here is, eh, defending the other person from actual harm. He should get a solicitor and get in touch with the elderly man as a defence witness.

Kosseegan

seamus wrote: »

It also requires however that the person carrying out the arrest has cause to believe that the offender would avoid or is avoiding arrest.

There's a simple litmus test for it - "Did you ask the person to stop and wait for a Garda to arrive?".

His defence here is, eh, defending the other person from actual harm. He should get a solicitor and get in touch with the elderly man as a defence witness.

The Defendant is not being charged with falsely imprisoning anyone. There is no litmus test identified in any case before the courts. From the point of view of prosecuting him for that offence, he would be entitled to the benefit of any doubt. It would not be practical in many cases to ask a criminal who is in the course of committing a violent offence to "please stop and wait until the garda come to arrest you".
This whole thing about the criminal "pressing charges" sounds suspect. All he can do is complain to the guards. It is the guards who compile a file and send it tio the DPP who decides to "press charges".

seamus

Kosseegan wrote: »

It would not be practical in many cases to ask a criminal who is in the course of committing a violent offence to "please stop and wait until the garda come to arrest you".

I disagree. It takes half a second. Even shouting "stop".

This whole thing about the criminal "pressing charges" sounds suspect. All he can do is complain to the guards. It is the guards who compile a file and send it tio the DPP who decides to "press charges".

He can file a civil claim for damages arising out of the assault. As far as I'm aware there is also scope for a Garda and an individual to bring a criminal prosecution without the DPP, though I don't know what's required in that case.

ResearchWill

seamus wrote: »

It also requires however that the person carrying out the arrest has cause to believe that the offender would avoid or is avoiding arrest.

There's a simple litmus test for it - "Did you ask the person to stop and wait for a Garda to arrive?".
If you didn't, then you have no cause to instantly jump in and use force to arrest them.
It sounds like attempted common assault. Carjacking, kidnapping and attempted murder? That's some imagination you have there

I'm not saying there's no "citizen's arrest" defence in this case, but I think it would be quickly and easily defeated by any semi-competent barrister or solicitor.

His defence here is, eh, defending the other person from actual harm. He should get a solicitor and get in touch with the elderly man as a defence witness.

Sub Section 4 states, "(4) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may only be effected by a person under subsection (1) or (2) where he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána."

I see no requirement to say excuse me are you going to stay put, while I ring the Garda. Unless you are aware of a case that sets the test you speak of.

In any case, I agree with you, in my opinion the more correct defence to any charge, would be the self defence of others.

Section 18 non fatal offences against the person act, 18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

An Udaras

Is their any test cases or precedents for when effecting a Section 4 CLA 1997 (Any Person Arrest/Citizen Arrest) i.e do you have to prove that you taught the prisoner you arrested would have absconded? Could be difficult one to use

Or is it enough for a person effecting a arrest under Section 4 of CLA 1997 that a clear offence has occurred i.e theft/assault etc.. Regardless of the prove the person would not wait for the Gardai??

---

For the OP a person could use Section 18 of Non Fatal Offence Against Persons Act 1997 to use reasonable force to prevent a Breach of the peace (Common Law) from occurring also I believe.

Zambia

The guy saw an assault in progress and would have good grounds to believe the victim was going to be seriously hurt.

He ran over and by his action stopped the Assault by grabbing the offender.

It would also be reasonable to assume if he released the person from his grip at this piont he himself could be assaulted or the offender may leave.

Or he possibly would be in harms way himself if he let the man go then tried to take hold of him again as he tried to leave.

The action the man took at the time was reasonable. Unless there was some unreasonable use of force (as in he was taking kidney shots while awaiting Gardai).

I say from the brief description the guy has done the right thing and there will be no charges against him.

My elder family drive the roads everyday if one of them was being assaulted for some conceived mistake I would hope someone younger and more capable would step in.

If your not prepared to stand up for what you know is right what is the point of knowing what is right.

theAwakening

MagicSean wrote: »

An arrestable offence has not been committed in this situation so there is no option of citizens arrest.

the definition of an 'arrestable offence' under s.2 CLA 1997 includes any attempt to commit such an offence.

based on the OP account, it would be reasonable to suspect that this may have been an attempt to assault causing harm. 'harm', as defined within the Act, should be considered subjectively based on each specific injured party (pulling an elderly man out of a car aggressively may/may not, due to recklessness, cause harm. the specifics in the aggressors/victim's statements would have to be analysed in detail when contemplating charges).

an arrestable offence of endangerment could be considered here also, subject to intent, if the injured party was pulled out of his car into oncoming traffic and evasive action was necessary etc.

based on the version of accounts given by the OP, which may / not be true of course, there is no way a charge would be directed. even the investigating garda, if seeking DPP directions, would realise this.

as mentioned, s.18 NFOAP, and in particular subsection 5, appears to cover this

MagicSean

theAwakening wrote: »

the definition of an 'arrestable offence' under s.2 CLA 1997 includes any attempt to commit such an offence.

based on the OP account, it would be reasonable to suspect that this may have been an attempt to assault causing harm. 'harm', as defined within the Act, should be considered subjectively based on each specific injured party (pulling an elderly man out of a car aggressively may/may not, due to recklessness, cause serious harm. the specifics in the aggressors/victim's statements would have to be analysed in detail when contemplating charges).

an arrestable offence of endangerment could be considered here also, subject to intent, if the injured party was pulled out of his car into oncoming traffic and evasive action was necessary etc.

It would be impossible to prove an attempt to commit S3 or S4 assult as opposed to a normal S2 assault. Same goes with endangerment.

theAwakening

MagicSean wrote: »

It would be impossible to prove an attempt to commit S3 or S4 assult as opposed to a normal S2 assault. Same goes with endangerment.

they could be proven a number of ways; actions/omissions, type of weapon produced by the accused at the time, what he said to the injured party during the commission of the offence, subsequent admissions by the accused as to their intent at the time etc.

there would be no need to prove it this case. if the person who intervened honestly believed, in the circumstances, that the old man would genuinely suffer harm from the action of the aggressor, that is sufficient. if a 6 foot, 16 stone, young male aggressively pulls a 90 year old man out of a car on a public road with moving traffic, it would be reasonable to assume that one of the the above mentioned offences would apply...excluding s.2 assault, which is not arrestable offence.

MagicSean

theAwakening wrote: »

they could be proven a number of ways; actions/omissions, type of weapon produced by the accused at the time, what he said to the injured party during the commission of the offence, subsequent admissions by the accused as to their intent at the time etc.

there would be no need to prove it this case. if the person who intervened honestly believed, in the circumstances, that the old man would genuinely suffer harm from the action of the aggressor, that is sufficient. if a 6 foot, 16 stone, young male aggressively pulls a 90 year old man out of a car on a public road with moving traffic, it would be reasonable to assume that one of the the above mentioned offences would apply...excluding s.2 assault, which is not arrestable offence.

In the case the op described it would not be reasonable to assume an arrestable offence was being committed. If the person had a weapon that is an arrestable offence in itself so it would not be relevant to a section 3 assault. You cannot judge how sever an assault is before it happens. Neither can you infer that a person will commit an act of endangerment. That would be ridiculous.

Marquis de carabas

theAwakening wrote: »

they could be proven a number of ways; actions/omissions, type of weapon produced by the accused at the time, what he said to the injured party during the commission of the offence, subsequent admissions by the accused as to their intent at the time etc.

there would be no need to prove it this case. if the person who intervened honestly believed, in the circumstances, that the old man would genuinely suffer harm from the action of the aggressor, that is sufficient. if a 6 foot, 16 stone, young male aggressively pulls a 90 year old man out of a car on a public road with moving traffic, it would be reasonable to assume that one of the the above mentioned offences would apply...excluding s.2 assault, which is not arrestable offence.

Your post is a good example of the problems faced by Gardai and the public perception of how they perform their duty.

To take your example where you see a old man pulled from a car. you are a witness to an altercation between two people. You don't actually know what's happening here but your making an assumption about what's going to happen.

That's very human and there is nothing wrong with that. However from a legal point of view you've just past judgement and decided one man is a victim and the other an offender.

Your example seems very clear cut doesn't it. But what about if that 90 year old man just did a hit and run and what your witnessing here is another man trying to apprehend him?

The law is restrictive in this area for a reason. Its hard enough for a trained Guard to keep perspective when dealing with serious incidents let alone a civilian.

Zambia

MagicSean wrote: »

In the case the op described it would not be reasonable to assume an arrestable offence was being committed. If the person had a weapon that is an arrestable offence in itself so it would not be relevant to a section 3 assault. You cannot judge how sever an assault is before it happens. Neither can you infer that a person will commit an act of endangerment. That would be ridiculous.

Magic Are you saying one should wait for the attacker to start inflicting injury prior to taking any action?

A bit of gate shutting after the horse has bolted isn't it.

MagicSean

Zambia wrote: »

Magic Are you saying one should wait for the attacker to start inflicting injury prior to taking any action?

A bit of gate shutting after the horse has bolted isn't it.

No I'm saying this incident has nothing to do with citizens arrest and instead is a case covered by the self defense section of the Non Fatal Offences Act.

Zambia

MagicSean wrote: »

No I'm saying this incident has nothing to do with citizens arrest and instead is a case covered by the self defense section of the Non Fatal Offences Act.

So basically the idea would be I am holding you in this position for my and others safety till the police arrive. Because I believe if I let you go you will attack myself or others.

Yeah I could see that working, all depends on the reason given by the restraining person for the restraint. I can see a defence in both reasons.