Myths masquerading as law

Pat Mustard

Several times I've heard people telling me some ridiculous myth and asserting it to be law.

I wanted to see what kind of ridiculous notions are out there, which people have asserted as law, but which in fact are not law at all.

Here are two to get the ball rolling:

1. A Garda cannot make an arrest unless he is wearing his hat.

2. A Garda must arrest a person who urinates in public but must use his body to shield a person who is defacating on the street, due to the urgency of the situation.

dahamsta

IANAL, but from posts I've read here it would appear to be a myth in Ireland that you can have a solicitor present when being interviewed by the Gardai, and that in most circumstances a Garda is not required to identify themselves to you by name or badge number. Both of which seem insane to me.

Procrastastudy

dahamsta wrote: »

IANAL, but from posts I've read here it would appear to be a myth in Ireland that you can have a solicitor present when being interviewed by the Gardai, and that in most circumstances a Garda is not required to identify themselves to you by name or badge number. Both of which seem insane to me.

On the solicitor present thing - there are actually a number of advantages now that the interviews are normally taped. Also many solicitors you talk to don't want to have to sit in.

Just sit there saying "I've been advised no to say anything by my solicitor." If the solicitor was in the room it would be much harder to avoid answering questions. (Good ans/or bad depending on you're point of view)

For me my favourite is that the Defence and the Dwelling act actually made any significant changes in the law.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

On the solicitor present thing - there are actually a number of advantages now that the interviews are normally taped. Also many solicitors you talk to don't want to have to sit in.

Just sit there saying "I've been advised no to say anything by my solicitor." If the solicitor was in the room it would be much harder to avoid answering questions. (Good ans/or bad depending on you're point of view)

For me my favourite is that the Defence and the Dwelling act actually made any significant changes in the law.

I was talking to a solicitor last week, was informed there are plans to change the law about having someone sit in on a interview.

Procrastastudy

ResearchWill wrote: »

I was talking to a solicitor last week, was informed there are plans to change the law about having someone sit in on a interview.

I won't be holding my breath to be honest.

the world wonders

3. if you pay your parking fine with 5,000 1¢ coins they are obliged to accept it as the coins are legal tender

jd80

One receives six years imprisonment for failing to pay the duty on garlic

Oh! Wait ...

NoQuarter

Cashiers have to process a purchase that is wrongly priced. Invitation to treat and all that jazz.

Procrastastudy

jd80 wrote: »

One receives six years imprisonment for failing to pay the duty on garlic

Oh! Wait ...

I've mixed feelings on this. If one assumes white collar crime should be punished surely a sentence around roughly half of what a house burglar could get seems appropriate.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I've mixed feelings on this. If one assumes white collar crime should be punished surely a sentence around roughly half of what a house burglar could get seems appropriate.

Well considering he actually got two years the myth is incorrect lol.

Custardpi

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I've mixed feelings on this. If one assumes white collar crime should be punished surely a sentence around roughly half of what a house burglar could get seems appropriate.

If I read this correctly you're saying that it's possible for a house burglar to get 12 years. While that may be the letter of the law what would the average sentence be in practice? The perception (which may well be wrong) is that burglars typically receive considerably less than 6 years & the garlic sentence was being measured against that in the public mind rather than the maximum sentence technically imposable for other crimes.

Procrastastudy

Custardpi wrote: »

If I read this correctly you're saying that it's possible for a house burglar to get 12 years. While that may be the letter of the law what would the average sentence be in practice? The perception (which may well be wrong) is that burglars typically receive considerably less than 6 years & the garlic sentence was being measured against that in the public mind rather than the maximum sentence technically imposable for other crimes.

Whoa there - this is getting a bit serious now (I know I started it ) 14 years max for burglary.

Custardpi

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Whoa there - this is getting a bit serious now (I know I started it ) 14 years max for burglary.

What would the average (roughly) in practice be though? Sorry if that's off topic slightly but as a non legal person I'd be interested to know how far away the public perception of light sentences being imposed on criminals (as opposed to the sentences techincally available under the law) is from the actual reality.

Robbo

Any minor defect in a summons will have the matter thrown out.

coylemj

You can run a financial institution with no regard for prudent lending, no single view of all of the loans you've given to individual clients, you as MD don't bother with e-mail or even have a computer terminal or PC on your desk.

You collude with the MD of another financial institution by giving him a 'bed & breakfast' facility to conceal a large loan that would otherwise need to be noted in his annual report.

You make sure that the board is stuffed full of your cronies, there is no agenda or paperwork of any kind in front of the directors at their meetings.

You thumb your nose at regulations, you run the whole operation into the ground, leave the taxpayers to pick up the mess and saddle them with a five billion Euro bill and then you retire with a pension package worth €29 million.

And you don't spend a single night in a jail cell.

Procrastastudy

Custardpi wrote: »

What would the average (roughly) in practice be though? Sorry if that's off topic slightly but as a non legal person I'd be interested to know how far away the public perception of light sentences being imposed on criminals (as opposed to the sentences techincally available under the law) is from the actual reality.

My court career is about 2 weeks old - and then all I do is carry things from place to place and take notes so I'm a terrible authority for 'in practice'. Academically sentences are generally a lot shorter than the maximums. That's an entire thread in itself there are many pros and cons.

trashcan

coylemj wrote: »

You can run a financial institution with no regard for prudent lending, no single view of all of the loans you've given to individual clients, you as MD don't bother with e-mail or even have a computer terminal or PC on your desk.

You collude with the MD of another financial institution by giving him a 'bed & breakfast' facility to conceal a large loan that would otherwise need to be noted in his annual report.

You make sure that the board is stuffed full of your cronies, there is no agenda or paperwork of any kind in front of the directors at their meetings.

You thumb your nose at regulations, you run the whole operation into the ground, leave the taxpayers to pick up the mess and saddle them with a five billion Euro bill and then you retire with a pension package worth €29 million.

And you don't spend a single night in a jail cell.

Yeah,what a crazy myth that is. Imagine anyone falling for that one.

Richie15

Heard one when I was in primary school and it seemed ridiculous enough even at the time, but then I heard it again recently - that if you're "a few cent" short when paying for something (sometimes specified that it has to be food, or exactly how many cent, depends who's saying it) the shop has to let you off.

This happens a lot, where people mix up courtesy with legal obligation. Same way a Garda "has to" let you off with a fine if you're less than 10 km/h over the speed limit, or if your tax is less than a month out of date.

Custardpi

One I've heard which I assume is a myth but have never actually bothered to confirm is to do with the Irish language. Basically it states that if a Garda arrests you (for any offence) & during the course of the arrest you address him as Gaeilge he should be able to reply to you without difficulty. If the Garda cannot cannot conduct the arrest through Irish then the arrest is invalid & the case may later be thrown out in court.

wmpdd3

Not sure about that one, but I was told about 10 years ago to query my 3 parking offences in Irish to the city council. I did and all three were cancelled.

Sala

Not sure if it classifies as a "myth" but a shocking amount of people I have met seem to believe that it's ok to have no will since their spouse gets everything anyway. Not counting on greedy childers

johnnyskeleton

Custardpi wrote: »

One I've heard which I assume is a myth but have never actually bothered to confirm is to do with the Irish language. Basically it states that if a Garda arrests you (for any offence) & during the course of the arrest you address him as Gaeilge he should be able to reply to you without difficulty. If the Garda cannot cannot conduct the arrest through Irish then the arrest is invalid & the case may later be thrown out in court.

If the Garda has to communicate something to you and you are unable to understand it in English but can understand it irish, he has to explain it to you in Irish either there and then or else at the station as soon as reasonably possible. So trotting out "gabh mo leithsceal" after arrest is not a magic bullet but if you are one of the less than 1% of people who speak irish but no English and the gardai refuse to give you a copy of your rights in Irish, then you may have a point.

Procrastastudy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

but if you are one of the less than 1% of people who speak irish but no English

There's 40,000 people in this country with Irish only? (Serious question)

valleyoftheunos

the world wonders wrote: »

3. if you pay your parking fine with 5,000 1¢ coins they are obliged to accept it as the coins are legal tender

As any DJ will tell you, folding money only!

NoQuarter wrote: »

Cashiers have to process a purchase that is wrongly priced. Invitation to treat and all that jazz.

A classic.

Robbo wrote: »

Any minor defect in a summons will have the matter thrown out.

Once upon a time maybe.

Sala wrote: »

Not sure if it classifies as a "myth" but a shocking amount of people I have met seem to believe that it's ok to have no will since their spouse gets everything anyway. Not counting on greedy childers

Two in one here, nothing to do with "greedy chidlers" if you leave no will the kids get a third by law.

IRLConor

dahamsta wrote: »

in most circumstances a Garda is not required to identify themselves to you by name or badge number.

What is the law on this exactly? I was under the impression that Gardai being identifiable (e.g. via shoulder numbers) was a matter of Garda policy but not a firm legal requirement.

RandolphEsq

coylemj wrote: »

You can run a financial institution with no regard for prudent lending, no single view of all of the loans you've given to individual clients, you as MD don't bother with e-mail or even have a computer terminal or PC on your desk.

You collude with the MD of another financial institution by giving him a 'bed & breakfast' facility to conceal a large loan that would otherwise need to be noted in his annual report.

You make sure that the board is stuffed full of your cronies, there is no agenda or paperwork of any kind in front of the directors at their meetings.

You thumb your nose at regulations, you run the whole operation into the ground, leave the taxpayers to pick up the mess and saddle them with a five billion Euro bill and then you retire with a pension package worth €29 million.

And you don't spend a single night in a jail cell.

*shudders*

Nice post!

CZ 453

I actually heard the two about the garda but slightly modified

1.If you have to take a number 2 and you have to do it there and then.You are entitled to do so as it is dangerous to your health.If a garda is present, he must provide you with his hat to go in and shield you from the public with his jacket

2.If you need a number 1 and you knock at 3 doors and are refused by all 3, then you may go where please in a public place.

3.I also heard that if you can prove to the gardai that you are lost and don't know how to get home, then they are required to bring you home

johnnyskeleton

Procrastastudy wrote: »

There's 40,000 people in this country with Irish only? (Serious question)

"less than"

i71jskz5xu42pb

James Bannon TD wrote:

Most people consider that recording a conversation without consent between individuals, at meetings, in the work place etc., is illegal.

Linky schminky

Sala

By greedy childers I meant that while get a third by law it would be quite common for the children to not take their inheritance especially if home has to be sold, but every now and then there is one who insists on their rights. I maintain the greed as fact not myth

ResearchWill

Sala wrote: »

By greedy childers I meant that while get a third by law it would be quite common for the children to not take their inheritance especially if home has to be sold, but every now and then there is one who insists on their rights. I maintain the greed as fact not myth

Kids can do that even if there is a will.

valleyoftheunos

Another one I've heard countless times and has just popped up on the forum.

"If you import a car from the UK you have a "Grace period" of 6 months to 2 years before you have to reregister it here."

YellowFeather

I was told in Leaving Cert business that a branded bag from a shop could count as proof of purchase. I've wanted to invoke that one so many times after misplacing the receipt, but I don't think it would work very well!

I think the statement was based on the circumstances of a particular case though - which I haven't been able to find since. Would love to know if anybody has heard of this one.

Indricotherium

ResearchWill wrote: »

Kids can do that even if there is a will.

Against someone married to the deceased?

Indricotherium

Myth: the road traffic act 1963 as enacted is law in Ireland and you should land down in the district court / local solicitors office waving it around every time you get done for speeding / clamped / other rto.

Myth: Scottish case law surrounding the issue of the legality of private clamping companies is law in Ireland.

Myth: naming any business in any negative context on boards.ie is slander / libel / defamation.

ResearchWill

Indricotherium wrote: »

Against someone married to the deceased?

Yup it's called section 117 of the sucession Act 1965, any child of a deceased who believes enough provision has not been made for him can bring an action to the Court. So if children are left out of a will or given in their opinion too little then the can make the application.

117.—(1) Where, on application by or on behalf of a child of a testator, the court is of opinion that the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means, whether by his will or otherwise, the court may order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1965/en/act/pub/0027/sec0117.html#sec117

Of course any such provision can not interfere with a spouses legal right share.

the_syco

Richie15 wrote: »

Same way a Garda "has to" let you off with a fine if you're less than 10 km/h over the speed limit

I think it's 10% over the speed limit, and is related to the accuracy of the speed gun...

Indricotherium wrote: »

Myth: naming any business in any negative context on boards.ie is slander / libel / defamation.

I'd say it's because Boards.ie refuses to goto court to prove whatever bullsh|t it's members come up with.

Myth; you have any free speech on boards.ie

Indricotherium

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yup it's called section 117 of the sucession Act 1965, any child of a deceased who believes enough provision has not been made for him can bring an action to the Court. So if children are left out of a will or given in their opinion too little then the can make the application.

117.—(1) Where, on application by or on behalf of a child of a testator, the court is of opinion that the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means, whether by his will or otherwise, the court may order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1965/en/act/pub/0027/sec0117.html#sec117

Of course any such provision can not interfere with a spouses legal right share.

I think you'd have a hard time proving failure of moral duty where another parent has been left the estate.

Uriel.

Indricotherium wrote: »

I think you'd have a hard time proving failure of moral duty where another parent has been left the estate.

Why do you think that?

seamus

Simpler common myths

- It's illegal to give a bad reference for a former employee

- You cannot take photos of random people in public

- Homeowners are required by law to give a glass of water to a passer-by who asks for it.

- If a car hits a pedestrian, the car is always at fault

One which I heard when I was a kid but thankfully never heard since was that if a car involved in a crash has no tax or no insurance, then that driver is instantly at fault because they shouldn't be on the road :rolleyes:

hardCopy

shezer wrote: »

I actually heard the two about the garda but slightly modified

1.If you have to take a number 2 and you have to do it there and then.You are entitled to do so as it is dangerous to your health.If a garda is present, he must provide you with his hat to go in and shield you from the public with his jacket

2.If you need a number 1 and you knock at 3 doors and are refused by all 3, then you may go where please in a public place.

3.I also heard that if you can prove to the gardai that you are lost and don't know how to get home, then they are required to bring you home

I've also heard that a Garda must offer his hat for pregnant women to pee in.

ResearchWill

Indricotherium wrote: »

I think you'd have a hard time proving failure of moral duty where another parent has been left the estate.

Considering the amount of cases where the HC has disagreed with you, I would think you may be wrong.

Dandelion6

Lots of people think prostitution is illegal. It's not, between consenting adults behind closed doors.

SB2013

IRLConor wrote: »

What is the law on this exactly? I was under the impression that Gardai being identifiable (e.g. via shoulder numbers) was a matter of Garda policy but not a firm legal requirement.

I'm only aware of relevent provisions under OASA and the RTA which state a garda must produce ID if not in uniform when executing certain powers. I'd presume any other provisions would be along the same lines.

Robbo

"Verbal contract mate, ain't worth the paper it's written on."

Custardpi

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Lots of people think prostitution is illegal. It's not, between consenting adults behind closed doors.

I'm fairly sure that only applies to individuals. If the activity is organised by several people acting as a group (with or without a "pimp"), using a particular premises for this purpose then it is illegal. I'm open to correction on that though.

valleyoftheunos

Custardpi wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that only applies to individuals. If the activity is organised by several people acting as a group (with or without a "pimp"), using a particular premises for this purpose then it is illegal. I'm open to correction on that though.

I'm not entirely up to speed on my victorian legislation so I'm having a hard time remembering but I believe that the act of paying money for sex is not illegal but soliciting it is as is living from its proceeds.

Actually now I'm confused, they myth might actually be that prostitution is not illegal.

IRLConor

SB2013 wrote: »

I'm only aware of relevent provisions under OASA and the RTA which state a garda must produce ID if not in uniform when executing certain powers. I'd presume any other provisions would be along the same lines.

Yeah. My understanding is that if they're in uniform they're under no obligation to identify themselves. In the vast majority of cases you'll be able to see their shoulder numbers but in some circumstances (e.g. Public Order Unit, Inspectors and above) they won't have visible ID.

amen

but in some circumstances (e.g. Public Order Unit, Inspectors and above) they won't have visible ID

why not? surely in a public order unit it is even more important to know who is who.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

IRLConor wrote: »

Yeah. My understanding is that if they're in uniform they're under no obligation to identify themselves. In the vast majority of cases you'll be able to see their shoulder numbers but in some circumstances (e.g. Public Order Unit, Inspectors and above) they won't have visible ID.

I've asked multiple uniformed Gardai for their shoulder numbers and I've never been refused, even when they have been extremely hostile with me before I asked. (That doesn't mean they're obliged to though)

Kevin3

Sylvie Short Apparel wrote: »

I've asked multiple uniformed Gardai for their shoulder numbers and I've never been refused, even when they have been extremely hostile with me before I asked. (That doesn't mean they're obliged to though)

Why would you need to ask when they are on their shoulders???