Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mattie Mcgrath accuses Shatter of being stopped by Gardai

Options
1…457910…14

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    bus_driver wrote: »
    Wallace was part of the gang who exposed garda quashing of penalty points in the dail , its no coincidence that his colleague deputy daly was herself slimed by AGS

    What's that got to do with my question?


  • Options
    #183
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ebbsy wrote: »
    Would'nt it be a great world if we all could say "ah sure I didn't do this " and we were just waved on.

    He's damaged goods now.

    Like, say, James Reilly?

    He won't be resigning over this


  • Options
    #184
    michael999999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭michael999999


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    You are being very selective with the press releases that you are referring to.

    Let me highlight the following statement for you, which was released before Mattie McGrath even mentioned the latest revelation in Dáil Éireann.

    Shatter’s explanation totally, unacceptable – Collins



    The highlighted text clearly illustrates as to how FF called on the minister to resign prior to the latest revelation, which just makes matters worse for Shatter. Stop trying to claim that FF only want the minister to stand down because of the McGrath revelation, as it is simply not true. It also rubbishes your claim that FF pulled back from calling on the minister to resign after the weekend, considering the statement I refer to above was released on Monday.

    It is laughable that you are trying to turn this on the opposition, when it is Shatter who landed himself in this latest controversy. People are not falling for your diversionary tactics.

    Did fianna fail ever ask Willie o death to step down after that incident with the affidavit?


  • Options
    #185
    bus_driver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 47 ✭bus_driver


    SB2013 wrote: »
    What's that got to do with my question?


    you asked why a report on Wallace being stopped reached the commissioners desk

    Wallace was part of a group along with daly who made AGS looked bad , they subsequently began digging for dirt on Wallace and attempted to stitch daly up as a drunk driver


  • Options
    #186
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,471 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    michael999999 wrote: »
    Did fianna fail ever ask Willie o death to step down after that incident with the affidavit?

    Indeed, among many many other "indiscretions".
    They'd want to make sure their glass house is well protected against stone damage before throwing any more grenades into the mix......


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    Aside from the exemptions within article 15.13 which are quite vague (particularly felony)
    I don't know of any case which suggests the term 'felony' is known to law anymore. If the term is known to law, the most likely explanation is that a felony is any offence which (i) is indictable AND is not ordinarily to be heard in any court of summary jurisdiction AND/ OR (ii) one which might ordinarily be punishable by a term of greater than 5 years imprisonment.

    To meet this or any similar test, there should be some prima facie reason to believe that any drink-driving offence would result in such an extraordinary conviction (any reason ought to be known to PULSE). A straightforward drink driving offence wouldn't cut the mustard as being identifiable with a felony.

    To suggest that any Garda should treat any possible drink driving offence as a felony seems even further beyond the boundary of possibility than your earlier notion that it might be considered a breach of the peace.

    Given my own criticism of Shatter, if there were any serious case to be taken against him I would be the first to be shouting about in on this forum. The facts are that there appears to be no serious case in terms of the Garda checkpoint he met on Pembroke Street.
    Was there evidential certainty that shatter, was in fact, coming from the dail?
    Why should there have to be? The DPP's behaviour in the Senator Dr. McCarthy affair would appear to suggest that Art. 15.13 privilege applies in respect of any journey from Oireachtas Eireann unto the Oireachtas member's place of residence, regardless of detours. A Garda has no reason to believe otherwise.
    All/many of these issues are at present unknown.
    And as questions that venture into the realm of private citizens' interactions with the Gardaí, ought to remain unknown, excepting any inexplicable media goodwill by the Minister for Justice.
    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    ...FF called on the minister to resign prior to the latest revelation
    Yes I know they called for Minister to resign before Mattie McGrath's mental farting. I am only talking about last weekend's acticities, when Fianna Fáil seemed to have second thoughts about the calls for resignation. The row-back made news headlines, if you want to check the records.
    It is laughable that you are trying to turn this on the opposition, when it is Shatter who landed himself in this latest controversy. People are not falling for your diversionary tactics.
    Why would I be exhibiting diversionary tactics? I myself think the Minister must resign. I just hold the opinion that Fianna Fáil don't have the faintest clue as to why his behaviour was improper, or illegal. You certainly don't, judging by your previous contributions.


  • Options
    #188
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    bus_driver wrote: »
    you asked why a report on Wallace being stopped reached the commissioners desk

    Wallace was part of a group along with daly who made AGS looked bad , they subsequently began digging for dirt on Wallace and attempted to stitch daly up as a drunk driver

    No i asked why there would be a report of it. I'd be fairly confident it never even made the Gardas notebook. Same goes for Shatters incident.


  • Options
    #189
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody, DUI has been considered to be a felony in certain circumstances in the US where the distinction between felony and misdemeanour exists.


    But the point is that your blank un-nuanced statement that the Garda had no discretion (even regarding an arrest) is premature, at best. There are too many unknowns both i the law and in the circumstances. You can't get away from that.


  • Options
    #190
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    Cody, DUI has been considered to be a felony in certain circumstances in the US where the distinction between felony and misdemeanour exists.
    The US interpretation of a felony is not even mildly interesting; any judicial interpretation of a felony, should the term be known to law in this jurisdiction, would firstly have to consider the historical basis of a felony in Irish legislation, and would thereafter appear to interpret a felony as any indictable, not ordinarily summarily convitable act AND/OR any act which may ordinarily be punishable by a term of greater than 5 years imprisonment.

    Obviously, a Garda would have to have some extraordinary reason to suscpect any run-of-the-mill drink driving charge amounted to a felony. I'm not accusing you of anything, but are you trolling?
    But the point is that your blank un-nuanced statement that the Garda had no discretion (even regarding an arrest) is premature, at best. There are too many unknowns both i the law and in the circumstances. You can't get away from that.
    No it's a reasonable statement. "(Even regarding an arrest)" is going beyond what I had initially stated. I am not necessarily doubting a Garda's ability to request a breath sample from a member of Oireachtas Eireann, my posts here have only referred to the legal grounds for arrest under Article 15.13. Any discretion outside of Article 15.13 obviously relates to a TD's or Senator's discretion, and not that of a Garda.


  • Options
    #191
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    bus_driver wrote: »
    Wallace was part of the gang who exposed garda quashing of penalty points in the dail , its no coincidence that his colleague deputy daly was herself slimed by AGS

    A gang, could you explain ?.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    The US interpretation of a felony is not even mildly interesting; any judicial interpretation of a felony, should the term be known to law in this jurisdiction, would firstly have to consider the historical basis of a felony in Irish legislation, and would thereafter appear to interpret a felony as any indictable, not ordinarily summarily convitable act AND/OR any act which may ordinarily be punishable by a term of greater than 5 years imprisonment.

    Obviously, a Garda would have to have some extraordinary reason to suscpect any run-of-the-mill drink driving charge amounted to a felony. I'm not accusing you of anything, but are you trolling?

    No it's a reasonable statement. "(Even regarding an arrest)" is going beyond what I had initially stated. I am not necessarily doubting a Garda's ability to request a breath sample from a member of Oireachtas Eireann, my posts here have only referred to the legal grounds for arrest under Article 15.13. Any discretion outside of Article 15.13 obviously relates to a TD's or Senator's discretion, and not that of a Garda.
    The simple fact is that the parameters of article 15.13 are quite unclear for quite a number of reasons. In those circumstances, the garda has quite a degree of discretion. Your personal interpretation as to the parameters of article 15.13 - fascinating as they are - are irrelevant in this particular context.


  • Options
    #193
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    The simple fact is that the parameters of article 15.13 are quite unclear for quite a number of reasons.
    And yet you have failed to provide any legal argument to that effect?

    Are we just to take your word for it?

    Lets be having your argument with reference to the appropriate case law, if necessary.


  • Options
    #194
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,467 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »

    Yes I know they called for Minister to resign before Mattie McGrath's mental farting. I am only talking about last weekend's acticities, when Fianna Fáil seemed to have second thoughts about the calls for resignation. The row-back made news headlines, if you want to check the records.

    There was no row back. Niall Collins, the justice spokesperson, stated that Shatter should resign and that has been the official line since - no matter what way individual members may have commented.
    Cody Pomeray wrote: »

    Why would I be exhibiting diversionary tactics? I myself think the Minister must resign. I just hold the opinion that Fianna Fáil don't have the faintest clue as to why his behaviour was improper, or illegal. You certainly don't, judging by your previous contributions.

    What do you mean? I have made it quite clear that Shatter grossly abused his position as minister based on his performance during that Prime Time show, and that he should resign as a result. I have been saying that long before the McGrath revelation, and your misinformation attempts will not change the facts.

    Let me reiterate - the original Shatter / Wallace controversy is the real story here. The McGrath revelations are insignificant unless they highly that Shatter was being economical with the truth in his statement, but the Prime Time is nonetheless far more serious in nature.


  • Options
    #195
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    And yet you have failed to provide any legal argument to that effect?

    Are we just to take your word for it?

    Lets be having your argument with reference to the appropriate case law, if necessary.

    The is none (that addresses all of the areas of uncertainty). That's the point.


  • Options
    #196
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    The is none...
    There is no argument, therefore you have an argument?

    I see a flaw in your reasoning, Sherlock.

    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    What do you mean? I have made it quite clear that Shatter grossly abused his position as minister based on his performance...
    Yes, I am referring to your superfluous and un-necessary rationale for the Minister's resignation, which you laid down on another thread on the politics forum.


  • Options
    #197
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    There is no argument, therefore you have an argument?

    I see a flaw in your reasoning, Sherlock.

    No case law (that addresses all of the areas of uncertainty).

    You are the one arguing that there was NO discretion regarding arrest. You need to show that the law is, therefore, clear in that regard.

    You haven't.


  • Options
    #198
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    No case law.

    You are the one arguing that there was NO discretion regarding arrest. You need to show that the law is, therefore, clear in that regard.

    You haven't.
    You don't seem to understand a basic legal principle of the common law jurisdiction, which is that everything is legal until it is shown not to be legal.

    There is no prima facie reason to believe that the Garda at the checkpoint in pembroke Street on this particular night had any legal basis for the arrest of a TD coming (however tortuously) from Dáil Eireann. If you know of any reason, be sure to let us know.


  • Options
    #199
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    You don't seem to understand a basic legal principle of the common law jurisdiction, which is that everything is legal until it is shown not to be legal.

    There is no prima facie reason to believe that the Garda at the checkpoint in pembroke Street on this particular night had any legal basis for the arrest of a TD coming (however tortuously) from Dáil Eireann. If you know of any reason, be sure to let us know.

    The first statement is so badly inaccurate it is laughable.

    And the rest does nothing to demonstrate that the law in this area is clear, which it must be, if your statement that the Garda had NO discretion (re arrest) to be true. Tthe Garda HAD a prime facile discretion to arrest unless you can show clearly that article 15.13 is applicable - which you haven't.


  • Options
    #200
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    The first statement is so badly inaccurate it is laughable.

    Perhaps you are better advised to consult a standard legal textbook than this forum. It is a basic principle that common law jurisdictions are proscriptive, i.e. everything is legal until there is shown to be a legal basis to the contrary.


  • Options
    #201
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Perhaps you are better advised to consult a standard legal textbook than this forum. It is a basic principle that common law jurisdictions are proscriptive, i.e. everything is legal until there is shown to be a legal basis to the contrary.

    Can't wait to see that legal textbook! Is it the same one which clearly ðefines the parameters of article 15.13?!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    Can't wait to see that legal textbook!
    You might begin with Searching for the State in British Legal Thought (McLean, J) Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law (2012)


  • Options
    #203
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    You might begin with Searching for the State in British Legal Thought (McLean, J) Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law (2012)

    I'm sure you can pluck out the relevant extracts.


  • Options
    #204
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    I'm sure you can pluck out the relevant extracts.

    Sure
    Jennings [in The Law and the Constitution] writes that some of the most basic liberites (with which Dicey was also concerned) such as freedom of speech and assembly, were never, in fact protected by the common law in any remediable or actionable sense. Such freedoms only exist to the extent that under the common law everything is legal that is not illegal.

    Searching for the State in British Legal Thought (McLean, J) p.186. Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law (2012)


  • Options
    #205
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Sure



    Searching for the State in British Legal Thought (McLean, J) p.186. Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law (2012)

    I don't think that you have fully understood that quotation. It is clearly not of general application.

    You need to be careful reading a statement that might apply in certain circumstances and extrapolating it to a wider application.

    But in any case, this has nothing to do with the assertion you have made re Garda discretion. A Garda clearly has discretion to arrest; YOU need to show that article 15.13 clearly prevents this discretion, something you have yet to do.


  • Options
    #206
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    I don't think that you have fully understood that quotation. It is clearly not of general application.
    why?


  • Options
    #207
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    why?

    Because it does not apply generally!

    While all of this undergraduate theory is fascinating, it is all irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. Try and stick to what is relevant.


  • Options
    #208
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    Because it does not apply generally!
    but why?


  • Options
    #209
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    drkpower wrote: »
    I don't think that you have fully understood that quotation. It is clearly not of general application.

    You need to be careful reading a statement that might apply in certain circumstances and extrapolating it to a wider application.

    But in any case, this has nothing to do with the assertion you have made re Garda discretion. A Garda clearly has discretion to arrest; YOU need to show that article 15.13 clearly prevents this discretion, something you have yet to do.

    I'm not sure what your argument is. An arrest of a TD coming from the Dáil would be unconstitutional. The Garda has discretion only in the same manner as he has discretion to enter your home without a warrant or use physical force on you without cause.


  • Options
    #210
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    SB2013 wrote: »
    I'm not sure what your argument is. An arrest of a TD coming from the Dáil would be unconstitutional. The Garda has discretion only in the same manner as he has discretion to enter your home without a warrant or use physical force on you without cause.

    There are a number of exemptions within article 15.13 the parameters of which remain quite unclear. The operation of article 15.13 also remains unclear (how does a td evidentially demonstrate that he is coming from the dail?; does he need to 'invoke' article 15.13 or does it apply simpliciter etc..).

    The point is that there is doubt as to how article 15.13 operates. Therefore an assertion that a garda definitely had no discretion regarding arrest is premature.

    The following article helps to explain the uncertainty to which I am referring.

    http://politicalreform.ie/2013/03/12/parliamentary-privilege-isnt-meant-to-be-for-this/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Mattie is a brazen chappy, the North and South Tipp Mafia might spill into the public forum soon. These guys could have one almighty fall.


Advertisement