Mattie Mcgrath accuses Shatter of being stopped by Gardai

Cody Pomeray

drkpower wrote: »

He clearly did have discretion. He could have asked him to accompany him to the station

That doesn't amount to discretion the legal context of an arrest. The Garda had the option of asking Shatter if Shatter would like to go to the Garda Station, but in that case the discretion was Shatter's. It is in this context that I say the Garda had no discretion in this case - he was constitutionally prohibited from compelling Shatter to attend the Station or enter Garda custody.

he could have confiscated his car if he suspected that he was drunk in charge

The Garda may have seized the vehicle if the Garda could establish reasonable suspicion that Shatter were drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. If Shatter had not met that test, as may have seemed likely by his demeanour and an absence of any indicator of intoxication whatever, the Garda would have no legal basis to seize Shatter's vehicle.

Either way, what I had contended was discretion in relation to an arrest, I mentioned arrest twice in the post you quoted. I did not refer to the seizure of a vehicle, so again, it escapes me why you think you can assert that I am wrong.

and arguably he could have arrested him under the exemptions in article 15.13.

What arguably is there? I have already responded setting out why that isn't the case, citing the relevant case law for breach of the peace.

jimmycrackcorm

soobie wrote: »

It appears that you seem to be ok when confidential info obtained from Garda Commisioners about Mick Wallace is allowed enter the public domain.

There's a clear trail of information between the minister of justice and the Garda Commissioner. The issue is that there is no clear trail here and what disturbs me is how there is not accountability for Gardai sharing information and for what purpose.

I remember the Joe O'Reilly murder news reports and how the Evening Herald had a front page photo of his arrest being taken from his home. I wondered at the time how they knew early in the morning that he was going to be arrested... I wondered because it just added to a public trial perception.

So here we are again, in yet another situation, where Garda information is being shared; the minister for justice has his excuse that he can legitimately ask the Commissioner for information and has had to account for that,
but yet the media and Mattie don't have to have the same accountability.

It was crass for Shatter to use ministerial information for political points.
It was crass for Wallace to claim Gardai should not be using discretion when he availed of such, never mind his incredible out of court settlement and his vat dodging;
Then there is Mattie and - will he share his crass source?

As for the Herald and the Joe O'Reilly arrest pictures... I salute their dedication to round-the-clock photographers because obviously the Gardai wouldn't snitch to politicians and the media.

Big C

Gardai did have discretion, he had to decide to stay where he was or go to tory island for ten years

Dave!

This is a non-story, Mattie McGrath may have had legitimate grounds to bring it up (or more likely just political reasons) but there's no evidence or suggestion of illegality or impropriety, so it's going nowhere. At worst it's a bit of hypocrisy from Shatter.

The media must have gotten all the mileage they could get out of the real story (that Shatter got and revealed politically useful personal information about an opposition TD from a Garda source) if they're running with this.

seamus

It's worth remembering that Shatter provided this information voluntarily. The alleged incident which Mattie McGrath referred to, never happened. Shatter could have just denied it and left it at that.

He probably decided that in the interests of not dragging this out into a mud-slinging contest, he would offer up a potentially relevant/similar incident because to do otherwise would be seen to be hiding something. But he didn't have to.

The actual issue here, as others have been pointing out, is nothing to do with politicians, it's to do with loose lips in the Gardai.

Sierra Oscar

seamus wrote: »

The actual issue here, as others have been pointing out, is nothing to do with politicians, it's to do with loose lips in the Gardai.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions, do you know the details as to where McGrath got his information from?

Its back in McGrath's hands now, he will have to provide further information if he is not satisfied with Shatter's statement. Although I suspect that the Sunday papers have the whole story.

Happyman42

According to Mattie there is a report to Superitendant level about the 'incident'. I can't see Shatter being protected from the pressure for much longer.
I suspect this is the Gardai getting rid of somebody they patently don't like. If the report finds it's way into the public realm then I will be convinced it is.
He took the Wallace bait and now he is sunk.

mikehammer67

like all of these back to the wall statements

there's prob more to it than meets the eye

he couldn't blow properly cos he had asthma but that was alright like cos he was on his way from the dail

-ya right pull the other one

Floppybits

Heard on Newstalk this morning that FF Justice Minister and FF party knew at the time about Shatter not being able to complete a Breathalyser test at this checkpoint. Seemingly it is an open secret around the Dail according to the Newstalk political correspondent. Now I dont like FF but at least they never used this information to discredit Shatter either at the time they knew about it and in the debate the other night.

For Shatter has been wrong during this whole debacle and should either be sacked or at least offer up his resignation and let Enda decided whether to accept it or not. But for me as personally I find this whole debacle very concerning with the behaviour of the Gardai, the media and the politicians in terms of what information is being gathered on people and what confidential is being leaked from supposedly confidential files to the media for nothing more than political gain. All it shows is that their is a very cozy relationship between the media, gardai and politicians and that for me is very concerning.

As for the penalty points issue which has started all this, I think the politicians were correct in bringing this information to light for the public. Why should you get let off penalty points just because of who you are or who you know? I agree that Gardai can use their discretion and give you a warning and wave you on but once you have been issued with a ticket or fine and are in the system then I dont think upper level Gardai should have the right to wipe the points, if you want the point wiped then contest the decision and go to court like everyone else.

Worztron

So if asthmatic Joe Soap goes out tonight and has 1 pint of beer and then drives home and gets stopped by the cops -- can he just say (very rudely just like Shatter) "Nope, I wont take the breathalyser test because I am asthmatic".

:mad: Another example of our rotten law with its 2 tier system.

Worztron

wazzer1 wrote: »

Sorry but whats this Dail privilege, they dont have to take a breath test??

Sounds like "let them eat cake" elitism. :mad:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/national_government/houses_of_the_oireachtas/privileges_of_tds_and_senators.html

seamus

Worztron wrote: »

So if asthmatic Joe Soap goes out tonight and has 1 pint of beer and then drives home and gets stopped by the cops -- can he just say (very rudely just like Shatter) "Nope, I wont take the breathalyser test because I am asthmatic".

If someone is unable to complete a roadside test, the Garda has the power to bring them down to the station to obtain an alternative sample.

The discretion part comes in because the Garda can choose not to bring them in if they believe it to be a waste of time - i.e. the person isn't drunk.

michael999999

Floppybits wrote: »

Heard on Newstalk this morning that FF Justice Minister and FF party knew at the time about Shatter not being able to complete a Breathalyser test at this checkpoint. Seemingly it is an open secret around the Dail according to the Newstalk political correspondent. Now I dont like FF but at least they never used this information to discredit Shatter either at the time they knew about it and in the debate the other night.

For Shatter has been wrong during this whole debacle and should either be sacked or at least offer up his resignation and let Enda decided whether to accept it or not. But for me as personally I find this whole debacle very concerning with the behaviour of the Gardai, the media and the politicians in terms of what information is being gathered on people and what confidential is being leaked from supposedly confidential files to the media for nothing more than political gain. All it shows is that their is a very cozy relationship between the media, gardai and politicians and that for me is very concerning.

As for the penalty points issue which has started all this, I think the politicians were correct in bringing this information to light for the public. Why should you get let off penalty points just because of who you are or who you know? I agree that Gardai can use their discretion and give you a warning and wave you on but once you have been issued with a ticket or fine and are in the system then I dont think upper level Gardai should have the right to wipe the points, if you want the point wiped then contest the decision and go to court like everyone else.

How could they when Jim MC daid was a proud member of Fianna Fail!

Floppybits

michael999999 wrote: »

How could they when Jim MC daid was a proud member of Fianna Fail!

The Jim Mcdaid situation is completely different, he was caught driving the wrong way on the road and it wasnt buried. But in this case they knew about Shatter, they could have done was Shatter did last Thursday and use that to attack him during the election but they didn't.

Unfortunately in this country all political parties are as bad as each other. :mad:

Mattie has said that a bystander passed the information on! That makes it nothing short of gossip. If the gardai had any indication that drink had been taken, I've no doubt that they would not have let him drive away.

bmaxi

bmaxi wrote: »

You think that it's not in the public interest to know that a serving Minister may have committed a serious offence?

IF he committed a serious offence, yes. Spreading gossip, which is what Mattie has done is wrong.

Worztron

seamus wrote: »

If someone is unable to complete a roadside test, the Garda has the power to bring them down to the station to obtain an alternative sample.

The discretion part comes in because the Garda can choose not to bring them in if they believe it to be a waste of time - i.e. the person isn't drunk.

Yes, they can bring the person to the station. Surely if they wanted a breath test -- there must be grounds for an alternative sample. You don't need to be drunk to be over the limit. Garda "discretion" seems to be for a certain group in society.

Cody Pomeray

Worztron wrote: »

Sounds like "let them eat cake" elitism. :mad:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/national_government/houses_of_the_oireachtas/privileges_of_tds_and_senators.html

It's nothing to do with elitism. The inspiration for this provision is said to stem from the assassination of Kevin O'Higgins in 1927, and the wider, fractured nature of civil war aftermath when basic concepts like democratic peace had to be explicitly protected.

I agree that Article 15.13 is now surplus to requirements, and should be removed from the Constitution.

Banjo String

Speaking on RTE’s Morning Ireland, Mr McGrath said a garda report on the incident is in existence and he called on Mr Shatter to make it available.

“Of course there is a garda report. This was a mandatory checkpoint ... It's an offence for anybody in law ... not to provide a specimen. Gardai were left with no choice but to make a report on it,” Mr McGrath said.

He added that he is “sure all the facts are contained” in the document.

He reiterated that he wants Mr Shatter to go into the Dail and make a full statement on the matter.

“Every garda checkpoint has to be authorised by an officer above the rank of inspector. There are records in the garda stations of this checkpoint,” Mr McGrath said.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mattie-mcgrath-onlooker-leaked-shatter-breathalyser-details-29293284.html

Why doesn't shatter publish the date he was stopped, the guards could then release the report, then they could check if he actually was on his way to/from the Dail, then the matter could be put to bed.

Cody Pomeray

SamHall wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mattie-mcgrath-onlooker-leaked-shatter-breathalyser-details-29293284.html

Why doesn't shatter publish the date he was stopped, the guards could then release the report, then they could check if he actually was on his way to/from the Dail, then the matter could be put to bed.

(1) Shatter is under no obligation to comment on public gossip nor his interactions with the Gardaí. If there is no charge, it's none of the public's business. That was the rule most of us applied to the Wallace case, it applies here too.
(2) Mattie McGrath thinks there must be a report on this exchange. There might be or there might not be. Mattie McGrath doesn't know.

Chucky the tree

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

(1) Shatter is under no obligation to comment on public gossip nor his interactions with the Gardaí. If there is no charge, it's none of the public's business. That was the rule most of us applied to the Wallace case, it applies here too.
(2) Mattie McGrath thinks there must be a report on this exchange. There might be or there might not be. Mattie McGrath doesn't know.

The hypocrisy from Shatter to pull this line would be comical.

Going Forward

Just suppose the following fictitious scenario at a mandatory breathalyzer checkpoint:

A TD: "I am travelling from Dail"
Not aware of any significance the (inexperienced) Garda says "So what" or words to that effect.

What happens next? Well the TDs identity would have to be verified and the Gaurd would have to satisfy himself of a number of factors, possibly seeking advice a senior member.

Not rocket science but presumably would leave a nice paper trail.

Particularly if the TD was a "Do you know who I am sort"

Floppybits

Going Forward wrote: »

Particularly if the TD was a "Do you know who I am sort"

Would you say that Shatter is a "Do you know who I am?" sort of person?

seamus

Worztron wrote: »

Yes, they can bring the person to the station. Surely if they wanted a breath test -- there must be grounds for an alternative sample. You don't need to be drunk to be over the limit. Garda "discretion" seems to be for a certain group in society.

I've had a roadside breath test fail on me (i.e. the machine didn't work) and I was waved on.

I've also been stopped at a checkpoint with an expired insurance disc (I was insured though) and after quickly asking me about it, I was waved on.

And I'm not a politician. Discretion is used on a daily basis by all if not most Gardai, there's nothing odd or corrupt about politicians experiencing it just like the rest of us do.

Floppybits

seamus wrote: »

I've had a roadside breath test fail on me (i.e. the machine didn't work) and I was waved on.

I've also been stopped at a checkpoint with an expired insurance disc (I was insured though) and after quickly asking me about it, I was waved on.

And I'm not a politician. Discretion is used on a daily basis by all if not most Gardai, there's nothing odd or corrupt about politicians experiencing it just like the rest of us do.

See this is the thing Seamus and this is where I am concerned. You say you were waved on at a couple of checkpoints, were your details taken, this is similar to Wallace been spoken to by a Garda at a set of lights and told not to use his phone and was waved on, no ticket or fine issued but yet this innocuouse event ended up on the desk of the commissioner and then was passed onto the Minister. Do all events were a someone is waved on or warned end up in a file or is it only were TD's are involved?

mikehammer67

seamus wrote: »

I've had a roadside breath test fail on me (i.e. the machine didn't work) and I was waved on.

I've also been stopped at a checkpoint with an expired insurance disc (I was insured though) and after quickly asking me about it, I was waved on.

And I'm not a politician. Discretion is used on a daily basis by all if not most Gardai, there's nothing odd or corrupt about politicians experiencing it just like the rest of us do.

i'm not sure it went down like that

i'd say he played the dail card when he was asked to go to the station


.......after failing to exhale into the bag

oscarBravo

mikehammer67 wrote: »

i'd say he played the dail card when he was asked to go to the station

Do you know he was asked to go to the station, or are you just making stuff up?

Going Forward

Floppybits wrote: »

See this is the thing Seamus and this is where I am concerned. You say you were waved on at a couple of checkpoints, were your details taken, this is similar to Wallace been spoken to by a Garda at a set of lights and told not to use his phone and was waved on, no ticket or fine issued but yet this innocuouse event ended up on the desk of the commissioner and then was passed onto the Minister. Do all events were a someone is waved on or warned end up in a file or is it only were TD's are involved?

The above to me are valid examples of the legitimate use of discretion as opposed to having offences wiped at some later point outside of the published appeals process.

mikehammer67

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you know he was asked to go to the station, or are you just making stuff up?

no it's opinion

i'm trying to fill in the gaps in the story left by mr shatters account

seamus

Floppybits wrote: »

See this is the thing Seamus and this is where I am concerned. You say you were waved on at a couple of checkpoints, were your details taken, this is similar to Wallace been spoken to by a Garda at a set of lights and told not to use his phone and was waved on, no ticket or fine issued but yet this innocuouse event ended up on the desk of the commissioner and then was passed onto the Minister. Do all events were a someone is waved on or warned end up in a file or is it only were TD's are involved?

I wouldn't be surprised if it's an unspoken rule in the Gardai that where they show discretion towards a politician or other public figure, they let their sergeant know, who in turn relays it up the line.
The aim being to cover their own arses.

Whether this information should be recorded is one thing, but it's certainly not something which should be relayed to anyone outside the force.