Mattie Mcgrath accuses Shatter of being stopped by Gardai

John_C

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone make that argument.

Fair enough, I've heard a lot of people make it but, in any event, an argument doesn't stand or fall on how popular it is.

The best run down of the rules I've read was from Dr. Elaine Bryne. I'm not great with twitter but if you scroll down her account here to 17th May she goes through the relevant laws.

The most relevant piece seems to be from The Code of Conduct for Office Holders:
"Ministers should "act in good faith with impartiality... respect confidences entrusted to them in the course of their official duties."
But she also goes through the relevant parts of a few other pieces of legislation.

oscarBravo

john.han wrote: »

...I'm surprised you can't make the distinction.

I can make it; I don't feel that it should be made. By demanding Shatter's head on a plate while exonerating McGrath, you're making precisely the argument that it's OK to release confidential information that you've received as gossip, but not to release confidential information that you've received in a briefing.

That's glossing over the much more substantive point that it's not OK to release confidential information in order to damage a political opponent. Maybe you're comfortable with skipping over that rather significant point on your way to Shatter's lynching, but I'm not.

mikehammer67

if shatter resigns over this

it's tough tiddy...........just sayin like

john.han

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can make it; I don't feel that it should be made. By demanding Shatter's head on a plate while exonerating McGrath, you're making precisely the argument that it's OK to release confidential information that you've received as gossip, but not to release confidential information that you've received in a briefing.

That's glossing over the much more substantive point that it's not OK to release confidential information in order to damage a political opponent. Maybe you're comfortable with skipping over that rather significant point on your way to Shatter's lynching, but I'm not.

Do you not see that because of his position a higher standard has to be expected? McGrath's revelations have not put the separation of powers into question, Shatter has done exactly that, which is a breach of his constitutional duties. You are trying to group both disclosures equally when it's plainly obvious what Shatter did is of far greater consequence.

intellectual dosser

Our country is in the dumps, hundreds if not thousands are emigrating each week, we're in the middle of one of the biggest legislation debates we've had for years - but whether or not Shatter was routinely stopped by the Gardai is what the Dail are talking about.

Cody Pomeray

john.han wrote: »

Briefings between the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice are confidential given the sensitive nature of the information exchanged

Right, so it is the information that is sensitive, not the meeting.

So how does this principle exonerate Mattie McGrath?

john.han wrote: »

Do you not see that because of his position a higher standard has to be expected?

Mattie McGrath is a legislator. I'd say a pretty high standard has to be expected of him, you know.

john.han

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Right, so it is the information that is sensitive, not the meeting.

So how does this principle exonerate Mattie McGrath?

No, the meeting is confidential given the nature of the information and the position of the parties involved. As I have said previously the Minister of Justice has a duty to uphold the separation of powers as required by our constitution and his disclosure was a grave breach of this duty. Mattie McGrath did not do this.

john.han

Is it accepted that Minister Shatter breached the separation of powers that is supposed to exist?

Cody Pomeray

john.han wrote: »

No, the meeting is confidential given the nature of the information and the position of the parties involved.

I don't see how you're forming a disagreement then.

Lets apply the above test to the Mattie McGrath case:

Can the information be described as confidential?
Yes. The information is protected under the Data Protection Acts and the Official Secrets Act, 1963.

Do the parties involved hold positions of high responsibility?
Mattie McGrath is a political office holder, if he received this information from a member of An Garda Síochána, the answer to this question is Yes.

Godge

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But there is absolutely no logical link to then revealing private information from Shatter's personal interactions with the Gardaí. That's nothing more than another attempt political assassination, using information that should never enter the public domain.

I disagree.

It is of public interest (if true) that Shatter was stopped by Gardai and refused a breath test because he was on the way to be the Dail. It is a resigning matter, if true, as it was an abuse of power.

It doesn't expose him as a hypocrite as unlike Wallace, he wasn't going round preaching one thing in public and doing another in private.

So if all the allegations are true then Shatter should resign over the abuse of the travelling to the Dail provision and Wallace is a hypocritical gombeen who should be ignored by all and sundry until the good people of Wexford decide in their wisdom to re-elect him.

If true, Shatter's actions in exposing Wallace's hypocrisy were in the public interest, ditto McGrath's actions in exposing Shatter's abuse of power is in the public interest. However, if either allegation is untrue (and I think Wallace has already admitted his) then there should be serious grovelling from the accusers.

Cody Pomeray

Godge wrote: »

I disagree.

It is of public interest (if true) that Shatter was stopped by Gardai and refused a breath test because he was on the way to be the Dail. It is a resigning matter, if true, as it was an abuse of power.

He has issued a statement saying he is asthmatic and was incapable of providing a sample. A Garda consulted with another Garda, and then let him go.

Shatter's actions in exposing Wallace's hypocrisy were in the public interest

Absolute nonsense, but this path is already well trod.

Sierra Oscar

Here is the statement in full - link.

Statement by Justice Minister Alan Shatter

Deputy McGrath in the Dáil this morning asked the Tánaiste about an event involving me which he alleged occurred sometime between the holding of the 2011 General Election and the appointment of the Government. No such event occurred at the time stated by the Deputy.

However, I do recall an occasion in 2009, or possibly late 2008, when there was a Garda night-time mandatory checkpoint in Pembroke Street in Dublin. There was a queue of motorists and when I was reached, like those before me, my Road Tax and Insurance discs were checked and I was asked to exhale into a breathalyser. I did so but failed to fully complete the task due to my being asthmatic. I explained this to the Garda. I also explained that I was on my way home from Dáil Éireann and that I had consumed no alcohol of any nature that day. The Garda consulted with another Garda and I was waved on. There was no question of my having consumed any alcohol, nor of my having committed any offence under the Road Traffic Acts. I heard no further of the matter until I learnt it was raised by Deputy McGrath in questions today to the Tánaiste.

To avoid any doubt or confusion, the incident I referenced in the Dáil on Tuesday evening was an occasion when I was in a Bus Lane at about 11.30 am on Ormond Quay in Dublin some years ago. A Garda on a motorbike stopped by my car and directed me to roll down my window and informed me I should not be in a Bus Lane. I explained that the signage detailed that all vehicles could travel in it between 10am and 12 noon. No more was said and he moved on.

Cody Pomeray

Non issue, clearly.

mikehammer67

hmm......

apparently there's a garda record on the breathalyzer incident

it's not over yet


seems like he had a lot of difficulty at the scene
-asthmatic
-on his way from the dail

very complicated

Sierra Oscar

I predict that the Minister is unlikely to be in the job this time next week.

mikehammer67

mikehammer67 wrote: »

hmm......
apparently there's a garda record on the breathalyzer incident
it's not over yet
seems like he had a lot of difficulty at the scene
-asthmatic
-on his way from the dail
very complicated

Very complicated, but plausable. Oh, Mattie. Talk your way out of this one!

seamus

Routine checkpoint, valid reason for non-provision, Garda waved him on.

Complete non-issue, Shatter has no more questions to answer unless Mattie has can provide any evidence.

mikehammer67

seamus wrote: »

Routine checkpoint, valid reason for non-provision, Garda waved him on.

Complete non-issue, Shatter has no more questions to answer unless Mattie has can provide any evidence.

i must try that some time

'sorry i can't blow i've got asthma' see if i get waved on

kippy

mikehammer67 wrote: »

i must try that some time

'sorry i can't blow i've got asthma' see if i get waved on

Yeah,
I would have thought that some evidence would be required for that or at least a requirement to give a urine or blood sample.
Did the Gardai exercise some discretion in not asking him for either?

HurtLocker

Wallace was attacking garda discretion although he himself received discretion when caught using a phone while driving.

Shatter could not complete a breathalyzer because of his asthma apparently and used the constitution to avoid it. He could have not bothered with the test in the first place if he wanted. No laws broken and any and every TD can do this tonight if they are stopped.

I don't like this dirty politics. But if we are too keep going I think every TD should have all their encounters with the guards released.

Cody Pomeray

mikehammer67 wrote: »

i must try that some time

'sorry i can't blow i've got asthma' see if i get waved on

The asthma is irrelevant. He was coming from the Dáil and was privileged from arrest under Article 15.13 of Bunreacht na hEireann.

The Garda did not use his discretion because the Garda had no discretion.

kippy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The asthma is irrelevant. He was coming from the Dáil and was privileged from arrest under Article 15.13 of Bunreacht na hEireann.

The Garda did not use his discretion because the Garda had no discretion.

Why was it mentioned then?

Cody Pomeray

kippy wrote: »

Why was it mentioned then?

It explains why Shatter was incapable of completing the breath test. There was never any question of him being arrested.

mikehammer67

which was it like.......

he couldn't blow cos of the asthma and was waved on

or he was on his way from the dail and was waved on

or both like..........

mikom

Remind me again about the last TD that couldn't fill a breathalyser.......... didn't she find herself in handcuffs........

Sully

A brief and to the point statement rubbishing the accusation. Not a 'I can't remember' and then suddenly remembering. He went back as far as 2009, which was the incident McGrath was on about. He was asthmatic which as far as I recall was a reason Claire Daley couldn't provide a sample. So that ticks the box about the stop, and then he points out about what he said re: leaving the Dail. It adds to the debate about another person having discretion applied.

So it appears that either Shatter has mislead us or McGrath was misinformed. Possibly hearing 'through the grapevine' what had happened but the story he was told was an exaggeration of what actually happened - hearsay.

So unless the Minister has lead us astray in his statement, its business as usual and his credibility isn't any more damaged. But it makes McGrath look like an eejit (probably why he said it in the Dail, ensuring he was protected) and further erodes the reputation of the Gardai.

The whole debate is a mess. Leaking of private and sensitive information to inflict damage on TDs & government ministers. The whole debate around "Should public reps who take the moral high ground have their rap sheet revealed" will ramble on but if it turns out that false information is being circulated, than that's a different tale in this story.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

Remind me again about the last TD that couldn't fill a breathalyser.......... didn't she find herself in handcuffs........

Clare Daly admitted having a drink. There is no suggestion that it was suspected that Alan Shatter had been drinking.

Sierra Oscar

Sully wrote: »

Possibly hearing 'through the grapevine' what had happened but the story he was told was an exaggeration of what actually happened - hearsay.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, I have been hearing otherwise!

serfboard

Sully wrote: »

But it makes McGrath look like an eejit

As opposed to the fine upstanding representative of de people the world has taken him for thus far?

Sully

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure of that, I have been hearing otherwise!

Lets see what happens. I wouldn't take much notice of what Fianna Fail would be telling me