Question re: The way arrests are reported on the news.

BattleCorp

This is a trivial question I know, but I'd like to find out why this is done so I'll go ahead and ask it anyway.

If somebody is arrested for murder/manslaugher/terrorism etc etc, the media often mention that he/she was arrested under "section xxxxxx of the Offences of the State act" or some other act.

Why bother mentioning what act they were arrested under? It makes feck all difference to 99.999999% of the public.

Is there a legal reason for this or is it some old fashioned thing that hasn't gone away?

RandolphEsq

BattleCorp wrote: »

This is a trivial question I know, but I'd like to find out why this is done so I'll go ahead and ask it anyway.

If somebody is arrested for murder/manslaugher/terrorism etc etc, the media often mention that he/she was arrested under "section xxxxxx of the Offences of the State act" or some other act.

Why bother mentioning what act they were arrested under? It makes feck all difference to 99.999999% of the public.

Is there a legal reason for this or is it some old fashioned thing that hasn't gone away?

Well the reason it is reported that somebody has been arrested, for example, under Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 for the rape of Susie with a Nokia phone, is because that is exactly what they have been arrested for! I would be interested to know of the specific crime they have been arrested for as I like to be well informed of the circumstances in order to develop an opinion on the issue!

johnnyskeleton

BattleCorp wrote: »

This is a trivial question I know, but I'd like to find out why this is done so I'll go ahead and ask it anyway.

If somebody is arrested for murder/manslaugher/terrorism etc etc, the media often mention that he/she was arrested under "section xxxxxx of the Offences of the State act" or some other act.

Why bother mentioning what act they were arrested under? It makes feck all difference to 99.999999% of the public.

Is there a legal reason for this or is it some old fashioned thing that hasn't gone away?

You're right. And the sports news should be nothing more than a list of today's winning teams with no mention of the final scores, goalscorers or who the losing side was.

BattleCorp

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You're right. And the sports news should be nothing more than a list of today's winning teams with no mention of the final scores, goalscorers or who the losing side was.

I think you misunderstood, or maybe I am just thick (a distinct possibility)

I'm not saying don't report the crime or details of the crime. I just see no reason for saying under what act they were arrested?

Does it dull the story for you if somebody is arrested for killing somebody with a shovel, or is it more exciting if somebody is arrested under "The Offences Against The Person Act" for killing somebody with a shovel?

Not quite the same thing as your sports analogy.

NoQuarter

Well it can indicate a lot of things like how serious the offence was as there are different offences under one Act, it shows how long the person can be held in the police station.

So it really, really is similar to the football analogy!

BattleCorp

NoQuarter wrote: »

Well it can indicate a lot of things like how serious the offence was as there are different offences under one Act, it shows how long the person can be held in the police station.

So it really, really is similar to the football analogy!

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the info.

NoQuarter

BattleCorp wrote: »

is it more exciting if somebody is arrested under "The Offences Against The Person Act" for killing somebody with a shovel?

Now that would be quite exciting as far as legal excitement goes!

Finnbar01

And when they also mentioned that the person was known to the Gardaí, you can be assured it was a scumbag involved.

Farcear

Finnbar01 wrote: »

And when they also mentioned that the person was known to the Gardaí, you can be assured it was a scumbag involved.

Is there a legal meaning to that phrase?

On the face of it, seems prejudicial / defamatory.

Zambia

From memory it always appears to be Section 30 of the offences against the State act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0030.html

Basically because its the best fit (Not envious at all:()

Our man in Havana

Also they always report "When charged the man said no" etc. Surely that has no legal value?

NoQuarter

Zambia wrote: »

From memory it always appears to be Section 30 of the offences against the State act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0030.html

Basically because its the best fit (Not envious at all:()

That and section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 are pretty much the "catch all" arrest powers.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

I've always wondered about this. They don't really do it in the UK so why here?

mcgarrett

NoQuarter wrote: »

That and section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 are pretty much the "catch all" arrest powers.

That's not actually a power of arrest, it's a power of detention by the member in charge of the station.

NoQuarter

mcgarrett wrote: »

That's not actually a power of arrest, it's a power of detention by the member in charge of the station.

Right section, wrong Act, Criminal Law Act, 1997. This is why I'm sticking with Civil.

Our man in Havana

What is the reason for always reporting the charge response?

Procrastastudy

I would guess that the reporting differences between here and the UK may involve the greater Contitutional protections. Arrest is certainly much more narrow here. As for the responce - protection of the good name? The defamation Act takes into account ones right to respond.

Just some noneducated guesses

Spell checker has died again

finty

Farcear wrote: »

Is there a legal meaning to that phrase?

On the face of it, seems prejudicial / defamatory.

Its usually only said after someone is dead. "the victim was known to gardai"