Conflict of interest

meoklmrk91

This is all theoretical. But just wanted to hear from some members of AGS on this. Say for instance there is a certain family living in a small town, having moved from a city after they were asked to leave by other locals. Now say this family are involved in blatant crime, minor anti-social behaviour, serious anti-social behaviour, drug dealing, threats, assaults, arson, a shooting etc the list goes on,. Now given that this a small town there is one Garda assigned to it, if it was a fact that this gardas mother was living a couple if doors down from other close members of this family in the city they came from would this be a conflict of interest?

pa990

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

This is all theoretical. But just wanted to hear from some members of AGS on this. Say for instance there is a certain family living in a small town, having moved from a city after they were asked to leave by other locals. Now say this family are involved in blatant crime, minor anti-social behaviour, serious anti-social behaviour, drug dealing, threats, assaults, arson, a shooting etc the list goes on,. Now given that this a small town there is one Garda assigned to it, if it was a fact that this gardas mother was living a couple if doors down from other close members of this family in the city they came from would this be a conflict of interest?

what exactly has this one garda done/ about to do/ should do/ could do, that you think could be a conflict of interest?

genuine question.

meoklmrk91

pa990 wrote: »

what exactly has this one garda done/ about to do/ should do/ could do, that you think could be a conflict of interest?

genuine question.

Seems to be turning a blind eye to everything this particular family do, has been known to be fully supportive of people pressing charges only when they find out that this family are involved they seem to want nothing at all to do with the situation, seems to a be a lack of evidence everytime which seems very strange to me.

pa990

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Seems to be turning a blind eye to everything this particular family do, has been known to be fully supportive of people pressing charges only when they find out that this family are involved they seem to want nothing at all to do with the situation, seems to a be a lack of evidence everytime which seems very strange to me.

hardy a conflict of interest.

hypothetically someone could raise their concerns with the local sgt or super.

Zambia

pa990 wrote: »

hardy a conflict of interest.

hypothetically someone could raise their concerns with the local sgt or super.

You need a better example like

On the 5th dec 12 I reported I saw member x of y family destroy my letterbox to Garda A. Garda A took no action as a result.

mikemac1

Sounds like Limerick city council moving their problem tenants out to the county

meoklmrk91

Zambia wrote: »

You need a better example like

On the 5th dec 12 I reported I saw member x of y family destroy my letterbox to Garda A. Garda A took no action as a result.

Well let's say that there was oil robbed from someone's tank by a member of this family,caught on CCTV, nothing done.
Or a member of this family tried to kick in someones front door in the early hours of the morning, but because the person only heard the member of the family roaring and shouting and didn't see them the Garda wouldn't even go and question the suspect. Loads more incidents but I don't want to get too much into it. Suffice to say this family have been terrorising people to point that they have moved from their homes, this has happened with atleast 10 different families in the area and nothing and I mean nothing has been done.

mikemac1 wrote: »

Sounds like Limerick city council moving their problem tenants out to the county

When I say they were asked to leave, I mean asked as in they were ran out of there by people akin to themselves.

pa990

yeah.. the tricky thing is that to have a successful prosecution on court, you kinda need evidence.

can the person be absolutely identified on cctv stealing oil.
ie could someone unconnected view the footage and then pick out the suspect offender.. or is it blurry/hard to delicately id the offender.

files are sent.up the chain of command, and usually it's not the investigating garda that had the last say in.whether or not a prosecution is took take place.

have you spoken to the garda in question, expressing your concerns in a diplomatic way?

meoklmrk91

pa990 wrote: »

yeah.. the tricky thing is that to have a successful prosecution on court, you kinda need evidence.

can the person be absolutely identified on cctv stealing oil.
ie could someone unconnected view the footage and then pick out the suspect offender.. or is it blurry/hard to delicately id the offender.

files are sent.up the chain of command, and usually it's not the investigating garda that had the last say in.whether or not a prosecution is took take place.

have you spoken to the garda in question, expressing your concerns in a diplomatic way?

Here I'm not stupid I understand that they gardai need evidence to prosecute. I actually do no live in the town in question but near by and have a lot of friends there so I am looking at this as an outsider looking in, it just seems a little bit strange to me as there have been so many incidents but not in one have they been able to make charges stick, funnily enough with regards to the drug dealing they are always raided once a year around the same time too. I could be adding 2+2 and getting 5 here but it just doesn't seem right.

Goonerdee

If you or anyone else believes there is a conflict of interest then contact the Garda Ombudsman. It is their job to identify any problems with Garda officers I'm sure.

msg11

Is this Garda that is living a 'few doors' down from this family, even stationed in the area?

I know from talking to Garda and they don't/won't nose around in stuff around there area where they live, can't blame them either..

meoklmrk91

msg11 wrote: »

Is this Garda that is living a 'few doors' down from this family, even stationed in the area?

I know from talking to Garda and they don't/won't nose around in stuff around there area where they live, can't blame them either..

Just stationed in the area not from there at all, where I wondering if the conflict of interest is that his mother lives very near where the family in question used to live and some of their close relatives live just a few doors up.

Zambia

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Just stationed in the area not from there at all, where I wondering if the conflict of interest is that his mother lives very near where the family in question used to live and some of their close relatives live just a few doors up.

That link is a stretch...

meoklmrk91

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I actually do no live in the town in question but near by and have a lot of friends there so I am looking at this as an outsider looking in, .

So you are getting info second and third hand then. Very reliable info that way.

kub

pa990 wrote: »

yeah.. the tricky thing is that to have a successful prosecution on court, you kinda need evidence.

can the person be absolutely identified on cctv stealing oil.
ie could someone unconnected view the footage and then pick out the suspect offender.. or is it blurry/hard to delicately id the offender.

files are sent.up the chain of command, and usually it's not the investigating garda that had the last say in.whether or not a prosecution is took take place.

have you spoken to the garda in question, expressing your concerns in a diplomatic way?

pa990 you are correct regarding the CCTV image, there are various standards in this trade, one of which for evidential purposes is to have footage which is actually what is termed 'identify'.
It is very rear that identification footage is obtained especially on CCTV systems which are installed in peoples houses. The typical house system has 4 cameras which can see everything but cannot identify anything.

The industry standard for identification means the subjects facial features has to take up a quater of a screen.

Am I reading it wrong?

Surely if the Garda's family live near to this troublesome family, then the Garda would be more inclined to want to get to the bottom of it, rather than the other way around (turning a blind eye)?

meathstevie

kub wrote: »

pa990 you are correct regarding the CCTV image, there are various standards in this trade, one of which for evidential purposes is to have footage which is actually what is termed 'identify'.
It is very rear that identification footage is obtained especially on CCTV systems which are installed in peoples houses. The typical house system has 4 cameras which can see everything but cannot identify anything.

The industry standard for identification means the subjects facial features has to take up a quater of a screen.

What the industry standards are is not overly relevant to the courts. The courts will consider only one point when it comes to CCTV recordings of criminal activity and that is the fact that a supect has been identified beyond all reasonable doubt and that the identification by a witness can be tested to the same standard in court.

It would be something down the lines of victim A stating in their statement of evidence that on such and such a day their oil was stolen and that the event was recorded on CCTV and when reviewing the CCTV Johnny from down the road was recognised. Quite likely followed by an as detailed as possible description of Johhny at the time of the event and and an explanation of how they knew if was Johnny from down the road which could be something down the lines of; I've known him from living down the road since he was a toddler to I've been in school with him for 5 years, his only brother played football with me and at some stage he told me the younger brother's name is Johhny etc etc etc.

kub

meathstevie wrote: »

What the industry standards are is not overly relevant to the courts. The courts will consider only one point when it comes to CCTV recordings of criminal activity and that is the fact that a supect has been identified beyond all reasonable doubt and that the identification by a witness can be tested to the same standard in court.

It would be something down the lines of victim A stating in their statement of evidence that on such and such a day their oil was stolen and that the event was recorded on CCTV and when reviewing the CCTV Johnny from down the road was recognised. Quite likely followed by an as detailed as possible description of Johhny at the time of the event and and an explanation of how they knew if was Johnny from down the road which could be something down the lines of; I've known him from living down the road since he was a toddler to I've been in school with him for 5 years, his only brother played football with me and at some stage he told me the younger brother's name is Johhny etc etc etc.

Meathstevie, I am not at all suggesting you are incorrect, I am sure there are many court cases just like you have described.

Would it not be better though for the prosecution to have video footage of the incident which has a very good image of the culprit, therefore not at all having to debate the actual identity of the guilty party?

Just considering a situation whereby scum bag Johnny from down the road is guilty but has denied the charge and the video is not showing a large enough picture of the culprit. So Johnny gets his buddy to lie for him and says on that day Johnny was with him and they were 15 miles away.
In this case the video footage might not be good enough to nail Johnny. So why install a system that is still lacking that final test? When for a few bob extra a proper system can be installed.