What is understood as 'frequent'

pk82

Section 11 Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act


11.—(1) A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or

... sections (b), (c) and (d) omitted for clarity

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500.


There was a separate thread but it addresses mostly a different but related matter.

Question:
In relation to 'frequent', does anyone know from experience what a court determines as a 'frequent' time scale?

ResearchWill

pk82 wrote: »

Section 11 Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act


11.—(1) A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or

... sections (b), (c) and (d) omitted for clarity

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500.


There was a separate thread but it addresses mostly a different but related matter.

Question:
In relation to 'frequent', does anyone know from experience what a court determines as a 'frequent' time scale?

Each case would turn on its own merits, of course the accused would argue that the frequency of the contact was not done to cause alarm distress or humiliation. So each case would turn on its own facts.

pk82

ResearchWill wrote: »

Each case would turn on its own merits, of course the accused would argue that the frequency of the contact was not done to cause alarm distress or humiliation. So each case would turn on its own facts.

Would anyone consider say for sake of argument, twice in one month as frequent ?


Not every month - just one month.

ResearchWill

pk82 wrote: »

I would think though twice in one month as Infrequent though.

You may well be correct, but of course it would depend on the facts of the case, it is not just necessary for the prosecution to show the contact was frequent, but that it was frequent so as to cause distress and alarm.

So two phone calls a month just to catch up and see is the money coming in, may be fine. Calling to persons place of work twice a month may not be, as that looks like it is trying to cause distress and alarm. So as I said it depends on all the facts.

Ken.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0024/sec0046.html#sec46

46.—A creditor, owner or a person acting on his behalf shall not visit or telephone—

(a) a consumer without his consent—

(i) at his place of employment or business unless the consumer resides at that place and all reasonable efforts to make contact with him have failed,

(ii) at any place,

(I) between the hours of 9 o'clock in the evening on any week day and 9 o'clock in the morning on the following day, or

(II) at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday (within the meaning of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 ),

(b) a consumer's employer or any member of the consumer's family unless that employer or family member is a party to the agreement, without the consent of the consumer, given in writing and separate from any other term of agreement,

for any purposes connected with an agreement other than the service of a document in connection with legal proceedings.

pk82

ResearchWill wrote: »

You may well be correct, but of course it would depend on the facts of the case, it is not just necessary for the prosecution to show the contact was frequent, but that it was frequent so as to cause distress and alarm.

So two phone calls a month just to catch up and see is the money coming in, may be fine. Calling to persons place of work twice a month may not be, as that looks like it is trying to cause distress and alarm. So as I said it depends on all the facts.

Is this not a strange statute?

By that I mean that the statute specifically state 'by reason of frequency' not 'by reason of content' or otherwise

The point of argument/prosecution is the 'frequency' and NOT the content?

For example, I think you gave an example earlier that if you sent a polite letter, but ten times a day, then it could be interpreted as 'broken the law'

Question
Considering the statute wording, if you sent one letter (not per day - just one) but it was 'strongly worded' or you visited the debtor once, but shouted at him or showered him in curses, you could not be cited under this statute (maybe under a different one, insulting behaviour etc, but not this one...)

or am I missing something here ??

ResearchWill

pk82 wrote: »

Is this not a strange statute?

By that I mean that the statute specifically state 'by reason of frequency' not 'by reason of content' or otherwise

The point of argument/prosecution is the 'frequency' and NOT the content?

For example, I think you gave an example earlier that if you sent a polite letter, but ten times a day, then it could be interpreted as 'broken the law'

Question
Considering the statute wording, if you sent one letter (not per day - just one) but it was 'strongly worded' or you visited the debtor once, but shouted at him or showered him in curses, you could not be cited under this statute (maybe under a different one, insulting behaviour etc, but not this one...)

or am I missing something here ??

That may then depending be covered by another section of the same act being section 2 or section 10.


Assault.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,


Harassment.

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

pk82

ResearchWill wrote: »

That may then depending be covered by another section of the same act being section 2 or section 10.


Assault.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,


Harassment.

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

Yes, but one would have to be charged with sec 2 or 10 in addition to 11 if the prosecution were to make a case on those ground covered in those sections.

I am talking about just being charged with 11 alone.

So then you could send one strong letter (or 'strong' visit) and for whatever reason not be charged under sec 10, 2 or another section or statute AND the prosecutions argument would fail as the frequency requirement is not met.

See what i mean?

or am I not understanding something here??

ResearchWill

pk82 wrote: »

Yes, but one would have to be charged with sec 2 or 10 in addition to 11 if the prosecution were to make a case on those ground covered in those sections.

I am talking about just being charged with 11 alone.

So then you could send one strong letter (or 'strong' visit) and for whatever reason not be charged under sec 10, 2 or another section or statute AND the prosecutions argument would fail as the frequency requirement is not met.

See what i mean?

or am I not understanding something here??

I have no case law to back this up, but yes I would think a prosecution under section 11 with only one even strongly worded letter, should fail, as no frequency.

Procrastastudy

Is there not a mens rea issue here that say X is calling around to Y once a week looking for payment. Y makes a complaint to the gardai - gardai arrest X and this is the first X knows about it causing alarm. Wouldn't the prosecution have a hard time proving intent - assuming that is the standard?

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Is there not a mens rea issue here that say X is calling around to Y once a week looking for payment. Y makes a complaint to the gardai - gardai arrest X and this is the first X knows about it causing alarm. Wouldn't the prosecution have a hard time proving intent - assuming that is the standard?

Good question, I would argued based on the drafting on the section there must be men's rea.

Procrastastudy

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good question, I would argued based on the drafting on the section there must be men's rea.

I thought all criminal charges require mens rea? What I mean is - the standard of mens rea (sorry I'm new at this :P) would have to be intent. It couldn't be that X was simply reckless as to causing alarm.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I thought all criminal charges require mens rea? What I mean is - the standard of mens rea (sorry I'm new at this :P) would have to be intent. It couldn't be that X was simply reckless as to causing alarm.

You are right, usually, but have a look at section 10 of the same Act,

"(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and"

If we look at section 11

"(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or"

I suppose a better way to look at it is the test what the victim feels or what the accused intended.

krd

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Is there not a mens rea issue here that say X is calling around to Y once a week looking for payment. Y makes a complaint to the gardai - gardai arrest X and this is the first X knows about it causing alarm. Wouldn't the prosecution have a hard time proving intent - assuming that is the standard?

I think there are actually specific guidelines agencies have on what constitutes harassment. I think they can only call you once a day, and that kind of thing.


My confession. I once worked for a business that was really just a front for a loan shark operation.

They used little old men as their agents. Who could in the blink of an eye, turn from something doddering and friendly, like your grandah, into something all the more terrifying and Faustian....."We had a deal......"....eyes red and nostrils flaring, in a hisssss "We had a deal....". The power of nightmares.....being pursued down dimly lit cobbled streets by a little old man in a long coat - slow and relentless. Worked like a charm.

And the Viper only knocks once.

ArtSmart

krd wrote: »

And the Viper only knocks once.

lol. yeah. usually enough.

posting for reasons (research) other than to help the OP. sorry OP.

ResearchWill

krd wrote: »

I think there are actually specific guidelines agencies have on what constitutes harassment. I think they can only call you once a day, and that kind of thing.


My confession. I once worked for a business that was really just a front for a loan shark operation.

They used little old men as their agents. Who could in the blink of an eye, turn from something doddering and friendly, like your grandah, into something all the more terrifying and Faustian....."We had a deal......"....eyes red and nostrils flaring, in a hisssss "We had a deal....". The power of nightmares.....being pursued down dimly lit cobbled streets by a little old man in a long coat - slow and relentless. Worked like a charm.

And the Viper only knocks once.

My own opinion a call every day could very well get a person in trouble under the 1997 Act.

If the little old men acted that way, and enough people are willing to give evidence they could also be in trouble.

One of the reasons I believe there are little prosecutions in this area, are that most people in debt are afraid and ashamed and do not know there are laws to help them.

NoQuarter

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I thought all criminal charges require mens rea?

Strict liability offences dont.

Procrastastudy

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are right, usually, but have a look at section 10 of the same Act,

"(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and"

If we look at section 11

"(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or"

I suppose a better way to look at it is the test what the victim feels or what the accused intended.

If I'm honest I'm just reading from Hanly - who uses that very example (calculated) to argue it is intention. I, and of course text books can be wrong, of course.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

If I'm honest I'm just reading from Hanly - who uses that very example (calculated) to argue it is intention. I, and of course text books can be wrong, of course.

I have no example of a prosecution under section 11, I have never heard of the section being used, hence why all we can do is guess until a judge actually decides, but I would think Hanly is right.

Procrastastudy

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have no example of a prosecution under section 11, I have never heard of the section being used, hence why all we can do is guess until a judge actually decides, but I would think Hanly is right.

Given he doesnt give any case law your point is well taken on the guess though!

Perhaps the OP will keep us informed

krd

ResearchWill wrote: »

One of the reasons I believe there are little prosecutions in this area, are that most people in debt are afraid and ashamed and do not know there are laws to help them.

When I got the calls over my credit issues, I just told the agent I had health problems - a brain tumour - and I was very willing to help them, but they would have to bear with me.

"Do you think we could structure a repayment plan over 6 months"

"Six months. That's very optimistic. I wish my doctor was as optimistic as yourself.....mumble murble...bathroom tiles...I don't know..how much for a whole bathroom....."

Needless for me to say....it worked like a charm. Al a guerre.

pk82

Whilst I am sure there are genuine situations where this law could apply e.g. someone genuinely wanting to pay but cannot it is like all law a double edged sword.

Take the - naturally hypothetical - situation of money being owed to a deceased's estate. The executor requests payment only to find himself in court under said section.

This would be nothing more than a vexatious attempt to evade payment by the debtor.

Furthermore, it would be an abuse of state resources Garda , Judges, Court staff etc. etc.

The law would be an ass

Some 'leeches' would eat their arm sooner than pay ...

ResearchWill

pk82 wrote: »

Whilst I am sure there are genuine situations where this law could apply e.g. someone genuinely wanting to pay but cannot it is like all law a double edged sword.

Take the - naturally hypothetical - situation of money being owed to a deceased's estate. The executor requests payment only to find himself in court under said section.

This would be nothing more than a vexatious attempt to evade payment by the debtor.

Furthermore, it would be an abuse of state resources Garda , Judges, Court staff etc. etc.

'The law is an ass' ??

Some 'leeches' would eat their arm sooner than pay ...

Again I would say I have never seen this section used. In relation to section 10 which is harresment, AGS usually if a complaint is made under that section, will have a quiet friendly chat with the person, and will only go further if it continues. I would assume the same should be the same in this situation. Also I would consider it very very hard to get a conviction under section 11.

ResearchWill

I have found a case I think is on point its a UK case deals with a similar section NORWEB PLC v. Dixon [1995] 1 W.L.R. 636

"I deal first with the true meaning of " calculated" in section 40(1) of the Act of 1970. For the appellants, Mr. Webster supports the justices' interpretation. He submits that: (i) the word " calculated" as a matter of ordinary language is ambiguous. TheShorter Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "reckoned, estimated, thought out, fitted, suited, apt, proper, likely to;" (ii) the statute is a penal one and, therefore, should be construed, in the case of any ambiguity, in favour of the defendant; (iii) the object of the offence created by section 40(1) of the Act of 1970 is to prevent creditors from adopting a course of conduct which is intended to produce a particular result, and which deliberately adopts a method which the creditor knows will cause alarm etc. The actus reus is the harassment, the mens rea is the selection of that method with the intention of coercing payment."

"We were referred to Turner v. Shearer [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1387. That was a case concerning an offence under section 52(2) of the Police Act 1964. The offence was one of wearing articles of police uniform " calculated to deceive." Shaw J., giving the principal judgment of the court, contrasted the language with that used in section 52(1), which created the different offence of impersonation "with intent to deceive." He went on, at pp. 1389-1390:

" The proper construction of the phrase 'as to be calculated to deceive' is not free from authority, for in a number of other contexts it has been held to mean: 'likely to deceive or reasonably likely to deceive.' It does not involve that there should be an intention to deceive. In a case under the Trade Marks Act 1905, McDowell v. Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) [1927] A.C. 632, where the suggestion made was that the trade mark which was used was calculated to deceive the public into thinking that they were buying the goods of the owner of a registered trade mark, Lord Cave L.C. said, at p. 637: 'It has been long ago decided, and is quite clear, that the words, " calculated to deceive" which are found in section 11 of the Trade Marks Act 1905, do not mean "intended to deceive" but "likely (or reasonably likely) to deceive or mislead the trade or the public". . .' The mischief, of course, under the Trade Marks Act 1905 is deceiving or misleading the public, just as the mischief under section 52(2) of the Police Act 1964 is deceiving or misleading the public. For my part I see no reason to attach a different meaning to that phrase as used in the Act of 1964 from that which was attributed to it by Lord Cave L.C. in McDowell v. Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) and in the many other cases where identical language was considered."

In my judgment, " calculated to subject" in section 40(1) of the Act of 1970 means "likely to subject," and not "intended to subject." Like Shaw J. in Turner v. Shearer [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1387, I see no reason to attach a different meaning to the words " calculated to" from that attributed to it by Viscount Cave L.C. in McDowell v. Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) [1927] A.C. 632, and in the many other cases where identical language has been considered. The draftsman of section 40(1) could easily have used the words "intended to," if that is what was intended. It is to be assumed that in choosing the words " calculated to," Parliament was aware of the meaning that has been attributed to them in many cases over a long period. I do not consider that the words are ambiguous. Nor can I agree with Mr. Webster that it is clear that the mischief at which section 40(1) of the Act of 1970 is directed is as he contends. I see no reason to suppose that Parliament intended to restrict the offence to cases where the putative creditor intends to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, leaving immune from prosecution those whose conduct, though not intended to do so, is likely to have such consequences."

The UK seems to be saying, that even if your intention was not to cause the distress if it did then you may be open to prosecution. There by my earlier comments on calculated have to be changed.

The Section 40 as enacted,

40Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—
(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it ;
(c)falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.
(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.
(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—
(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or
(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.

pk82

Thanks for the detailed case from UK

So sec 11 would read (paraphrased): demands for payment which would by reason of their frequency be likely to cause ...

So likely to cause alarm by reason of their frequency and not content or otherwise.

I expect that the draftsman of the statute was, like in the UK scenario, aware of the language he chose when choosing frequency and not adding content, manner etc.

Still no idea what is considered 'frequent' though (not too many prosecutions under this section)

Again I would say I have never seen this section used. In relation to section 10 which is harresment, AGS usually if a complaint is made under that section, will have a quiet friendly chat with the person, and will only go further if it continues. I would assume the same should be the same in this situation. Also I would consider it very very hard to get a conviction under section 11.

Yes seems that way to me too.

Is there an 'attitude' of prosecution in the Gardai if the accused does not make a statement (assuming that a complainant does) when asked by the gardai if accused wishes to?

MagicSean

I would think that if the DPP has been provided with nothing to refute the allegations made or any evidence provided it would be fairly likely they will direct a prosecution.

pk82

MagicSean wrote: »

I would think that if the DPP has been provided with nothing to refute the allegations made or any evidence provided it would be fairly likely they will direct a prosecution.

Yes it would seem there is nothing better to do for us all than protect those who use the free resources of the state to evade payment

MagicSean

pk82 wrote: »

Yes it would seem there is nothing better to do for us all than protect those who use the free resources of the state to evade payment

What exactly did you expect? If they have an allegation supported by evidence and the suspect refuses to cooperate they are hardly going to just leave it.

pk82

MagicSean wrote: »

What exactly did you expect? If they have an allegation supported by evidence and the suspect refuses to cooperate they are hardly going to just leave it.

Funny that is exactly what AGS did on a number of occasions when proof of crimes were laid in front of them and statement made but none by accused -

like I said, evaders using the free resources of the state to attempt to stop the executor collecting for work completed by the deceased - carrying on from my hypothetical scenario earlier of course

Procrastastudy

pk82 wrote: »

Yes it would seem there is nothing better to do for us all than protect those who use the free resources of the state to evade payment

Only person using state resources here is the one acting contrary to the law. Also how can something that is free need payment for?

pk82

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Only person using state resources here is the one acting contrary to the law. Also how can something that is free need payment for?

No. Evaders using free Garda and courts to stop the creditor.

Work done not free.

Procrastastudy

pk82 wrote: »

No. Evaders using free Garda and courts to stop the creditor.

Work done not free.

Ah now I see - well actually I don't I have a pounding headache and I'm getting spots in front of my eyes - my addiction to boards is so complete I'm still here. To be fair there are ways for chasing debtors - I'm not saying that this has been done - but threatening them is not one of them.

pk82

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Ah now I see - well actually I don't I have a pounding headache and I'm getting spots in front of my eyes - my addiction to boards is so complete I'm still here. To be fair there are ways for chasing debtors - I'm not saying that this has been done - but threatening them is not one of them.

Now! now! Who said they were threatened? :-)

The statute states by 'reason of frequency'.

As one other out it - if you sent 10 polite letters on one day you have theoretically contravened the law and according to the letter of the law should be fined and convicted.

Visit them one time and curse them from a height - then you cannot be charged under sec 11 - mayvbe under another statute but not 11.

unfortunately in the real world there are very very hardened evaders

MagicSean

pk82 wrote: »

Funny that is exactly what AGS did on a number of occasions when proof of crimes were laid in front of them and statement made but none by accused -

like I said, evaders using the free resources of the state to attempt to stop the executor collecting for work completed by the deceased - carrying on from my hypothetical scenario earlier of course

Ah, the old "Why are you giving me a speeding ticket when there are people being murdered" argument.

Look it's obvious you are seeking legal advice on the internet. This is a stupid thing to do. Get a good criminal law solicitor.

Procrastastudy

pk82 wrote: »

As one other out it - if you sent 10 polite letters on one day you have theoretically contravened the law and according to the letter of the law should be fined and convicted.

This is actually a really goos example of what I as saying. The mens rea required is intention - if this was an administrative error then that standard has not been reached and the prosecution would fail. Otherwise why would you send out 10 polite letters in one day other than to harass someone?

pk82 wrote: »

Visit them one time and curse them from a height - then you cannot be charged under sec 11 - mayvbe under another statute but not 11.

unfortunately in the real world there are very very hardened evaders

I'm missing the relevance of this point I'm afraid - sorry.

pk82

MagicSean wrote: »

Ah, the old "Why are you giving me a speeding ticket when there are people being murdered" argument.

Look it's obvious you are seeking legal advice on the internet. This is a stupid thing to do. Get a good criminal law solicitor.

No argument. If I were to be prosecuted I WILL fight all spurious claims

Like I said professional evaders who want work done and then not pay for it. Nothing to do with ability to pay. Throw everything in ones way to stop payment being collected.

If you haven't experienced this, you are either still in law school or if a solicitor have led a sheltered life.

no advice - interested in the meaning of 'frequency' and 'calculated'

Got latter - did not get former - probably will not as not many prosecutions under this section.

Probably not much different at a solictor - he would have to think about it too I would imagine

Procrastastudy

pk82 wrote: »

No argument. If I were to be prosecuted I WILL fight all spurious claims

Like I said professional evaders who want work done and then not pay for it. Nothing to do with ability to pay. Throw everything in ones way to stop payment being collected.

If you haven't experienced this, you are either still in law school or if a solicitor have led a sheltered life.

no advice - interested in the meaning of 'frequency' and 'calculated'

Got latter - did not get former - probably will not as not many prosecutions under this section.

Probably not much different at a solictor - he would have to think about it too I would imagine

This is what credit referencing agencies are for - I think every solicitor will have experienced someone trying to avoid payment - I wouldn't describe them as sheltered I'd describe them as blessed if they haven't.

I used to run my own little business when I was younger - I always made sure that if I was doing work that I couldn't afford not to be paid for I got a payment up front. If it was a consumer - I always took the money for parts up front and labour at the end. I've had to chase people but there are limits and sometimes you get done - that what civil courts are for.

By the way I'm still at Law School and I wouldn't considered myself very sheltered. Not after that porno I was shown at RAF Bruggen - scared me for life.

krd

The central banks code of conduct for banks calling customers in mortgage arrears is just three calls a month.

Generally, you have credit controller in companies, their job is to chase up late payers. And a lot of the time it's just simple stuff, like the customer has changed bank accounts or if it's a company, they're just being tardy. They don't ring people non stop.

Debt collection agencies are different. They may pick up the debts for pence.

But even the moneylenders (who charge ridiculous interest rates) they do make an effort to collect, but they don't threaten to break legs. The delinquency rate is usually well covered by their high interest rate, and it's the same for credit cards - a large portion of the interest rate is to cover delinquency.

But usually, if they don't think you have the money, they won't call you.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

I would think that if the DPP has been provided with nothing to refute the allegations made or any evidence provided it would be fairly likely they will direct a prosecution.

Firstly the DPP should not consider of the accused has refuted the allegation. The DPP should look at the evidence presented at its height.

Secondly section 11 is a summary offence so doubt the DPP would have much interest.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

Firstly the DPP should not consider of the accused has refuted the allegation. The DPP should look at the evidence presented at its height.

Secondly section 11 is a summary offence so doubt the DPP would have much interest.

Firstly, if the dpp has nothing to refute any of the evidence put before him then what else would he look at?

Secondly, the dpp must be consulted on many summary matters.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

Firstly, if the dpp has nothing to refute any of the evidence put before him then what else would he look at?

Secondly, the dpp must be consulted on many summary matters.

The DPP often does not prosecute when the accused remains silent. To answer your question the DPP looks at the evidence before him as I stated.

Can you give any document to back up your assertion that the DPP gets involved in a summary only offence. I'm not saying same does not exist I just would like to be aware of same.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

The DPP often does not prosecute when the accused remains silent. To answer your question the DPP looks at the evidence before him as I stated.

Can you give any document to back up your assertion that the DPP gets involved in a summary only offence. I'm not saying same does not exist I just would like to be aware of same.

General Direction No. 2

It's available on the DPPs website.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

General Direction No. 2

It's available on the DPPs website.

Yup while it mentions section 10 no mention of section 11. So again I ask where the DPP reserves to herself section 11 or requires notification. BTW since the 8th November 2011 its General Direction No. 3, the only thing in it that could effect a section 11 NFOATP would be

"6. The Garda SIochána are encouraged to seek directions in any case, even of a summary nature, where there is an unusual question of law involved, where the charge is without fairly recent Irish precedent or where the matter has aroused unusual public interest, or is likely to do so."