Caught with small quantity of drugs

Magnetics

Hi there,

Last summer I was caught in possession of a small amount of cannabis at a music festival

I gave my details to the garda and provided him with identification as requested

Over 8 months on now and I have yet to receive my court date. Is this common in the Irish courts system?

Also, I've read some conflicting reports online, some stating that after 9 months of the seizure, the gardai cannot pursue the case. Other reports say they have as long as they want/need to issue the court date

Could anyone clear this one up for me?

Thanks in advance

mcgarrett

If it was at the Electric picnic they tend to get a special court sitting in June.

Magnetics

Thanks for the replies

Yes mcgarret it was at EP, so it's looking like a June court date for my sins

Since it's my first offence, I'm hoping it will be just a fine but you'd never know what might happen. It's worrying that they print some of the names of the court attendees in the Leinster express, a paper my relatives from Laois read religiously! And I'm sure future employers wouldn't be keen on someone when they see their name pop up in a google search. Such a stupid risk to take on my part, only after realising how much it can feck up your life, and for such a small crime aswel

Dont worry about it man,
same happened my cousin a few years back at EP
he just got a 300 (I think) fine and never heard anything else.
no big deal and certainly not the end of the world!

and he got a visa for Canada a year or two after so take from that what you will

hullaballoo

urbanledge wrote: »

Dont worry about it man,
same happened my cousin a few years back at EP
he just got a 300 (I think) fine and never heard anything else.
no big deal and certainly not the end of the world!

This is certainly not helpful and is actually quite dangerous. Please read the forum Charter before posting here again.


DS get their entire per annum quota for convictions from EP and/or Oxegen. It's pretty much shooting fish in a barrel for them. They do prosecute people from these events.


I remember being warned by a prominent Criminal Solicitor who deals with a shed-load of EP/Oxegen possession cases not to even contemplate bringing anything to these events. His words were, "just make sure you never bring anything to those festivals. If you must, smoke in international waters, like me."


Since there is no legal advice to be sought or given on this forum, I suggest that you engage a solicitor.

SB2013

hullaballoo wrote: »

DS get their entire per annum quota for convictions from EP and/or Oxegen.

Source?

hullaballoo

SB2013 wrote: »

Source?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73237204&postcount=13

I've said it at least twice now.

The same solicitor as my above post told me. He could have been making it up but it makes sense to me.

valleyoftheunos

hullaballoo wrote: »

The same solicitor as my above post told me. He could have been making it up but it makes sense to me.

Hearsay evidence! inadmissible clearly:D

knird evol

hullaballoo wrote: »

DS get their entire per annum quota for convictions from EP and/or Oxegen.

What is their per annum quota set at these days? What happens them if they don't meet it? Are they sacked or docked salary or what?

SB2013

knird evol wrote: »

What is their per annum quota set at these days? What happens them if they don't meet it? Are they sacked or docked salary or what?

More importantly, how many got fired after oxegen was cancelled?

Sala

The Garda has to apply for the summons within 6 months. If they did I would have thought they would have served you already, I've seen a few recently applied for at deadline, but served quickly. I would have been pretty confident you wouldn't be charged but I hadn't heard about the EP June sitting.

Just googled it there and there is an article from May 30 people charged, all made donations to the Court Poor Box, and had their charge struck out or were given a second chance through the probation act.

All you can do is wait and see, (and save lots of money for the poor box to try avoid a criminal record!)

MadsL

Nice to see the Garda protecting the world from people smoking drugs whilst they are locked inside a big fence miles from anywhere in a big old field.

Fair play lads. Hope you enjoyed the weed you confiscated and smoked destroyed.

Zambia

MadsL wrote: »

Nice to see the Garda protecting the world from people smoking drugs whilst they are locked inside a big fence miles from anywhere in a big old field.

Fair play lads. Hope you enjoyed the weed you confiscated and smoked destroyed.

As soon as you campaign to make it legal they will stop arresting people for it.

SB2013

MadsL wrote: »

Nice to see the Garda protecting the world from people smoking drugs whilst they are locked inside a big fence miles from anywhere in a big old field.

Fair play lads. Hope you enjoyed the weed you confiscated and smoked destroyed.

You prefer Gardaí only enforced the laws they personally agree with?

MadsL

Zambia wrote: »

As soon as you campaign to make it legal they will stop arresting people for it.

If expats voices counted in Ireland they would have the vote.

SB2013 wrote: »

You prefer Gardaí only enforced the laws they personally agree with?

What would you say is the primary function of having Gardai at the Electric Picnic? Would you say arresting people for small amounts of a harmless (though illegal) substance was important? Or would they be better placed trying to find scumbags ripping off peoples stuff whilst they enjoy the music. Or protecting punters from violence?

I have seen the muppets who are supposed to be 'undercover' at the Electric Picnic jumping out of a van in the middle of the site, about as undercover as Kermit. All polo shirts and Garda haircut.

Some of the Garda presence at EP is sound, and I have spoken to detectives working the site trying to nab some very unsavoury characters. However some plod trying to make an impression by arresting someone with less than 2g of weed is simply costing taxpayers unnecessary expense - messing up someones future - and all so they can justify being at the EP in the first place. Silliness.

Perhaps you think the Gardai should be checking tax in the car parks too?

charlemont

Zambia wrote: »

As soon as you campaign to make it legal they will stop arresting people for it.

Rubbish, You know it and I know it ! Cannabis seizures are ye'r bread and butter.. Lot's of far more dangerous illegal acts occur daily and ye don't have the same motivation or eagerness to act on them. Ye choose to target people for it as part of the policing policies.

You can fool some of the people all the time but you won't fool me..I know what ye are about with regards to Cannabis..

That's not personally aimed at you by the way as I have no idea what you do at work.

SB2013

MadsL wrote: »

If expats voices counted in Ireland they would have the vote.



What would you say is the primary function of having Gardai at the Electric Picnic? Would you say arresting people for small amounts of a harmless (though illegal) substance was important? Or would they be better placed trying to find scumbags ripping off peoples stuff whilst they enjoy the music. Or protecting punters from violence?

I have seen the muppets who are supposed to be 'undercover' at the Electric Picnic jumping out of a van in the middle of the site, about as undercover as Kermit. All polo shirts and Garda haircut.

Some of the Garda presence at EP is sound, and I have spoken to detectives working the site trying to nab some very unsavoury characters. However some plod trying to make an impression by arresting someone with less than 2g of weed is simply costing taxpayers unnecessary expense - messing up someones future - and all so they can justify being at the EP in the first place. Silliness.

Perhaps you think the Gardai should be checking tax in the car parks too?

You didn't answer my question.

MadsL

SB2013 wrote: »

You didn't answer my question.

No I didn't

Here's another question, do you believe the Gardai should exercise discretion in the exercise of their powers and that there is a difference between smoking weed in feild with 30,000 like minded people and smoking it on the street in Dublin?

Jack Lumber

I remember (I think it was last year) Naas district court had a special sitting after Electric Picnic for people caught with drugs, I'm sure I read people got heavy fines (€300-€700 depending on the quantity) but received the Probation act, ie. no criminal conviction.

MadsL

Jack Lumber wrote: »

I remember (I think it was last year) Naas district court had a special sitting after Electric Picnic for people caught with drugs, I'm sure I read people got heavy fines (€300-€700 depending on the quantity) but received the Probation act, ie. no criminal conviction.

That'll teach these middle-class tax-paying citizens that they cannot mess with the law!

What a waste of time and effort.

mikom

How to breed contempt for law and order in three easy steps......

Jack Lumber

MadsL wrote: »

That'll teach these middle-class tax-paying citizens that they cannot mess with the law!

What a waste of time and effort.

In fairness the fines were pretty heavy, probably paid the judge's wages for the week.

I don't agree with convicting people who are caught with small amounts of drugs at music festivals, we were all young once.

MadsL

Jack Lumber wrote: »

In fairness the fines were pretty heavy, probably paid the judge's wages for the week.

I don't agree with convicting people who are caught with small amounts of drugs at music festivals, we were all young once.

You have to be young? Shit, I've been doing it wrong

SB2013

MadsL wrote: »

No I didn't

Here's another question, do you believe the Gardai should exercise discretion in the exercise of their powers and that there is a difference between smoking weed in feild with 30,000 like minded people and smoking it on the street in Dublin?

So it's question for question time? Do you see a difference between exercising discretion and ignoring a law completely? Also, do you not think 30,000 like-minded people is a bit of a stretch?

MadsL

SB2013 wrote: »

So it's question for question time? Do you see a difference between exercising discretion and ignoring a law completely? Also, do you not think 30,000 like-minded people is a bit of a stretch?

Ask the 30,000 if they give a flying fuck about the guy smoking a bit of weed. 99.9% of them would prefer that the Gardai dealt with the drunk asshole who just puked on them. Or better yet go catch the scummers who jumped the fence to rob people's tents.

No need to ignore the law, Gardai fail to pull people over on the roads everyday for minor traffic offences. Just use the law as appropriate. No reason the OP should not have been given a warning.

Zambia

charlemont wrote: »

Rubbish, You know it and I know it ! Cannabis seizures are ye'r bread and butter.. Lot's of far more dangerous illegal acts occur daily and ye don't have the same motivation or eagerness to act on them. Ye choose to target people for it as part of the policing policies.

You can fool some of the people all the time but you won't fool me..I know what ye are about with regards to Cannabis..

That's not personally aimed at you by the way as I have no idea what you do at work.

The piont still stands if it was not illegal then the Gardai could do nothing about it. Why people insist on blaming the Gardai for catching them with Cannabis when they have made zero effort to try and legalise it is beyond me.

Look at the Dutch Police ask them do they care that people are smoking pot in the cafe across the road. Once its legal the gardai will move on.

MadsL

Zambia wrote: »

The piont still stands if it was not illegal then the Gardai could do nothing about it. Why people insist on blaming the Gardai for catching them with Cannabis when they have made zero effort to try and legalise it is beyond me.

Look at the Dutch Police ask them do they care that people are smoking pot in the cafe across the road. Once its legal the gardai will move on.

...but but it would no longer be what the cool kids smoke if you legalise it!!

In more serious tone, not everyone is in a position to have public position supporting the legalisation of illegal drugs. Not every employer is exactly supportive of personal freedoms.

A referendum would pass tomorrow.

Zambia

MadsL wrote: »

...but but it would no longer be what the cool kids smoke if you legalise it!!

In more serious tone, not everyone is in a position to have public position supporting the legalisation of illegal drugs. Not every employer is exactly supportive of personal freedoms.

A referendum would pass tomorrow.

I would not be so sure on the referendum front but without a ground swell of Political will there will never be any public vote.

I would not vote for it, I think the drug is counter productive to good mental health in the long term.

MadsL

Zambia wrote: »

I would not be so sure on the referendum front but without a ground swell of Political will there will never be any public vote.

It's the politics blocking the popular vote as far as I can see.

]I would not vote for it, I think the drug is counter productive to good mental health in the long term.

Ban alcohol too? Far far worse.

Zambia

MadsL wrote: »

It's the politics blocking the popular vote as far as I can see.



Ban alcohol too? Far far worse.

Politicians are meant to represent the voters so there is always a way to change them.

True Alcohol does cause more misery but there is even less political will to ban that, plus the genie is well out of the bottle.

MadsL

Zambia wrote: »

Politicians are meant to represent the voters so there is always a way to change them.

Maybe in Australia.

True Alcohol does cause more misery but there is even less political will to ban that, plus the genie is well out of the bottle.

I see what you did there.

If people are smoking it already - wouldn't it be better to measure and inform on THC levels?

Zambia

MadsL wrote: »

I see what you did there.

If people are smoking it already - wouldn't it be better to measure and inform on THC levels?

So the conception of Alcohol was bad so we should introduce alcohol 2.0 as a consequence.

Na people just should not smoke it. Even the tobacco in the joint is bad for you.

MadsL

Zambia wrote: »

So the conception of Alcohol was bad so we should introduce alcohol 2.0 as a consequence.

Na people just should not smoke it. Even the tobacco in the joint is bad for you.

Where do I start with that?

Is there some law about smoking it with tobacco? 99% of Americans dont.

And how the hell is weed Alcohol 2.0??? The social impacts are just about registering as ants compared to the T Rex that is alchohol.

SB2013

MadsL wrote: »

It's the politics blocking the popular vote as far as I can see.

What are you basing this on? A survey or just based on the people you know?

mikom

Zambia wrote: »

So the conception of Alcohol was bad so we should introduce alcohol 2.0 as a consequence.

Na people just should not smoke it. Even the tobacco in the joint is bad for you.

Tobacco's not too nice in a vaporizer.

MadsL

SB2013 wrote: »

What are you basing this on? A survey or just based on the people you know?

What are you basing your assertion that cannabis is harmful on?

I guess, like, that's just your opinion, man.

234

MadsL wrote: »

What are you basing your assertion that cannabis is harmful on?

I guess, like, that's just your opinion, man.

Read Nutt et al (2007) 369 The Lancet 1047.

SB2013

MadsL wrote: »

What are you basing your assertion that cannabis is harmful on?

I guess, like, that's just your opinion, man.

Did i say it was harmful?

MadsL

I think this about covers where you said it was harmful.

Zambia wrote: »

I think the drug is counter productive to good mental health in the long term.

SB2013

MadsL wrote: »

I think this about covers where you said it was harmful.

That's a different poster. You can tell by the different names.

MadsL

SB2013 wrote: »

That's a different poster. You can tell by the different names.

Sorry, too much weed

MadsL

234 wrote: »

Read Nutt et al (2007) 369 The Lancet 1047.

Not being a doctor I don't have a sub to the Lancet. Got a summary?

Zambia

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, too much weed

I should add its not great in the short term to.

All I am saying is I would not Vote to legalise it. However I would not kick up a stink if it was legalised.

MadsL

Zambia wrote: »

I should add its not great in the short term to.

All I am saying is I would not Vote to legalise it. However I would not kick up a stink if it was legalised.

Would you not see it as being beneficial as an alternative to alchohol, much as nicotine vaping is a much less harmful source of nicotine?

mikom

MadsL wrote: »

Not being a doctor I don't have a sub to the Lancet. Got a summary?

The findings develop on an earlier study by Professor Nutt which called for the classification system of drugs to be reviewed in line with harm. Nutt is continuing to call for a change in Government policy; "The Misuse of Drugs Act is past its sell-by date and needs to be redone."

The new Lancet study claims to have taken a more advanced approach to assessing harms, using a wider range of 16 criteria. These include an assessment on each drug's affects on users' physical and mental health, social harms including crime, family problems, environmental damage and economic costs.

MadsL

How does he define 'harm'? As a person living in Mr White's town, the harm to others rate for Meth seems absurdly low, a fair chunk of our crime rate is Meth related.

Zambia

MadsL wrote: »

Would you not see it as being beneficial as an alternative to alchohol, much as nicotine vaping is a much less harmful source of nicotine?

Sorry no , its not an alternative to Alcohol option.

You cant replace stuff with other addictions.

A bit like Heroin addicts stating they have been clean for 2 years (on Methadone).

Your still hooked on a drug.

Seriously exercise is a better alternative to Alcohol or Bananas (eaten not smoked)

hullaballoo

MadsL wrote: »

How does he define 'harm'? As a person living in Mr White's town, the harm to others rate for Meth seems absurdly low, a fair chunk of our crime rate is Meth related.

I agree, you'd need to see what metrics and quantifiers they've used for that. Harm to others score for a lot of junkie faves seems very low.

Zambia

MadsL wrote: »

How does he define 'harm'? As a person living in Mr White's town, the harm to others rate for Meth seems absurdly low, a fair chunk of our crime rate is Meth related.

I would assume its harm to the human body itself

MadsL

Zambia wrote: »

Sorry no , its not an alternative to Alcohol option.

You cant replace stuff with other addictions.

A bit like Heroin addicts stating they have been clean for 2 years (on Methadone).

Your still hooked on a drug.

Seriously exercise is a better alternative to Alcohol or Bananas (eaten not smoked)

Addictions? Wut? Most recreational drinkers/weed smokers are not addicted.
When was the last time you heard of someone getting in a fight because they were stoned?