Garda convicted of Insurance Fraud

jonsnow

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garda-found-guilty-of-insurance-fraud-29354886.html

A Garda has been acquitted of charges of harassing a garage owner and his father after a dispute over crash repairs that had been carried out on the officer’s car.

However the jury convicted Garda Paul Fogarty (27), who is based at Dundrum Garda Station, of insurance fraud.

Fogarty had pleaded not guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to harassing Christopher Kelly and his father, Patrick, on dates between November 1, 2008 and May 31, 2009.

He had also pleaded not guilty to dishonestly by deception inducing Quinn Direct to pay out an insurance claim of €10,254 at Littlepace, Clonee, Co Meath.

The jury returned its verdict on day five of the trial after just over three hours deliberation. Judge Sarah Berkeley remanded Fogarty on continuing bail until next July for sentencing.

Silly boy.Threw away his reputation and livelihood for a relatively small amount of money. Should have had the patience to follow the proper course of action instead of taking a crazy shortcut to try and reclaim his money.

Festy

PaurGasm

carzony

God love em.. Imagine what it would be like going to prison as an ex garda :eek:

Sofaspud

PaurGasm wrote: »

Fogarty, not Gogarty!

msg11

He paid in advance for the work.
He asked the guy to steal his car.
He told him he would break his legs.
This other old fella was into robbing cars for stripping by the sounds of it.
Insurance fraud.

More to this story than a dodgy insurance scam if you ask me.

What a plonker to say the least.

Bluegrass1

carzony wrote: »

God love em.. Imagine what it would be like going to prison as an ex garda :eek:

He hasn't got jail yet.

Dyr

carzony wrote: »

God love em.. Imagine what it would be like going to prison as an ex garda :eek:

Apparently the convention in the irish legal system is that bould gardas never go to jail, as that case in cork brought to light

yamaha2013

there is alot more to this story than meets the eye.

Pharaoh1

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

He hasn't got jail yet.

Also he is still referred to in all the reports that I've seen as a Garda not a former Garda.
Is it possible that he would be allowed to remain in the force?

snubbleste

Yes of course.

gobnaitolunacy

Short of going on a shooting spree they can keep their job.

Jiggers77

Thats just ridiculous! A sad state of affairs that this guy could potentially go back to work after the crimes he has committed!

Boombastic

He'll probably be promoted

Kinzig

Boombastic wrote: »

He'll probably be promoted

he will make sergeant in no time:D

MidlandsM

all joking aside, he'll never make anything of himself in the force now - he's lucky to hang onto his job.

And for a young garda on a young gardas basic wage, with all the wads of cash he had to buy the celica, he took out thirsd party fire and theft.........what a dumbass.

if he paid the bit extra for fully comp, he could have claimed for his car, and avoid having to engage in all this criminal activity........clown.

Kinzig

MidlandsM wrote: »

all joking aside, he'll never make anything of himself in the force now - he's lucky to hang onto his job.

And for a young garda on a young gardas basic wage, with all the wads of cash he had to buy the celica, he took out thirsd party fire and theft.........what a dumbass.

if he paid the bit extra for fully comp, he could have claimed for his car, and avoid having to engage in all this criminal activity........clown.

To be frank, if he holds onto his job its a joke..a serving poilice officer whos supposed to be whiter than white can go out and commit insurance fraud and then be convicted of same..yet still retains his job as a guardian of the peace:eek:..thats entirely wrong and would do the force no credit tbh..

kneemos

How do you break someones legs?quite difficult I'd imagine.It's the kind of threat that would indicate you're dealing with an idiot.

MidlandsM

Kinzig wrote: »

To be frank, if he holds onto his job its a joke..a serving poilice officer whos supposed to be whiter than white can go out and commit insurance fraud and then be convicted of same..yet still retains his job as a guardian of the peace:eek:..thats entirely wrong and would do the force no credit tbh..

ok Frank , why not send a strongly worded letter to the Garda Ombudsman stating the above?

Kinzig

MidlandsM wrote: »

ok Frank , why not send a strongly worded letter to the Garda Ombudsman stating the above?

its just an observation..if AGS wants to move forward and better themselves as a force then they really need to start properly addressing these type of issues..they cant continue to sweep everything under the carpet then expect to be respected as a force..it just dont work that way.as for the ombudsman..The phrase"ask me brother if Im a liar" springs to mind:rolleyes:

carzony

Kinzig wrote: »

To be frank, if he holds onto his job its a joke..a serving poilice officer whos supposed to be whiter than white can go out and commit insurance fraud and then be convicted of same..yet still retains his job as a guardian of the peace:eek:..thats entirely wrong and would do the force no credit tbh..

I could have sworn Rte news said he is now a former member of Ags?. Jesus, surely he can't be trusted to tell the truth in his job now?

Boombastic

carzony wrote: »

I could have sworn Rte news said he is now a former member of Ags?. Jesus, surely he can't be trusted to tell the truth in his job now?

Up until last night RTE were referring to him as a serving Garda
Updated: 22:56, Tuesday, 18 June 2013


A serving garda has been convicted of deceiving an insurance company into paying him over €10,000 after his car was stolen.
Paul Fogarty, 28, who is stationed in Dublin, was found guilty of the charge this afternoon,

yore

carzony wrote: »

God love em.. Imagine what it would be like going to prison as an ex garda :eek:

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

He hasn't got jail yet.

Neither will he.

anyone remember the case a few years ago where a guard was convicted of something and given time but then appealed on the fact that he was a guard and the judge let him off.

It was a fairly serious case. I can't remember. there are a lot of guards and there seems to be a lot of them involved in different court cases as defendants in the last couple of years. This might have been the one who battered some fella on the street when he was pissed and off duty

carzony

yore wrote: »

Neither will he.

anyone remember the case a few years ago where a guard was convicted of something and given time but then appealed on the fact that he was a guard and the judge let him off.

It was a fairly serious case. I can't remember. there are a lot of guards and there seems to be a lot of them involved in different court cases as defendants in the last couple of years. This might have been the one who battered some fella on the street when he was pissed and off duty

It didn't go to court but lets not forget the '' I'll rape you'' incident

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gardai%20rape%20video%20&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsm.ie%2Fc%2Fgarda-corrib-rape-pipeline&ei=zbrBUb71E-aM7QaQhoH4DA&usg=AFQjCNGzQop2EOfg9ukhf7k6DYNQa_B8kQ&bvm=bv.47883778,d.ZGU

Great bunch of lads so they are

yamaha2013

I can verify that there was over 600 texts that were highly offensive . All these texts were inadmissable in court due to the fact that the original phones were not available in court. Had the case ran on full facts I have no doubt in my mind that he would have been convicted on all charges. Also the witnesses were told what they could and could not say to the members of the jury.... No justice at all . Its all down to who is best legally represented........................

tfitzgerald

Would consider myself a strong supporter of the Garda. But in this case he should be fired on the spot and I would even consider a jail sentence for him

sbsquarepants

kneemos wrote: »

How do you break someones legs?quite difficult I'd imagine.It's the kind of threat that would indicate you're dealing with an idiot.

The threat was most probably just an asshole mouthing off, but surely it's not rocket science to break a leg?

jonsnow

yamaha2013 wrote: »

I can verify that there was over 600 texts that were highly offensive . All these texts were inadmissable in court due to the fact that the original phones were not available in court. Had the case ran on full facts I have no doubt in my mind that he would have been convicted on all charges. Also the witnesses were told what they could and could not say to the members of the jury.... No justice at all . Its all down to who is best legally represented........................

Why were the original phones not in Court?. Why were the witnesses informed that certain aspects of their testimony was not to be aired in front of the Jury?

yamaha2013

jonsnow wrote: »

Why were the original phones not in Court?. Why were the witnesses informed that certain aspects of their testimony was not to be aired in front of the Jury?

when texts are taken from a device and put into data form on a spreadsheet, the original texts on the device needs to be in court to corespond text for text. In this instance, the phone was returned to the witness and the accused. Alot went on behind closed (jury) doors. It is shocking that such a mistake could be made , firstly by the gardai but also the judge for not allowing the text messages

msg11

Kinzig wrote: »

To be frank, if he holds onto his job its a joke..a serving poilice officer whos supposed to be whiter than white can go out and commit insurance fraud and then be convicted of same..yet still retains his job as a guardian of the peace:eek:..thats entirely wrong and would do the force no credit tbh..

If he is convicted of a crime it will trigger an internal investigation within AGS, he is going to lose his job. These are very serious charges/convictions against him. It would be morally wrong for AGS to keep him enforcing the law.

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Would consider myself a strong supporter of the Garda. But in this case he should be fired on the spot and I would even consider a jail sentence for him

As am I, for a Garda and him with an understanding of the law. He blatantly showed serious disregard and an smug attitude in thinking he could get away with it cause of his position. I say this all the time, it seems peoples common sense in general is going by the waste side. He basically told Quinn Direct to pay out more and put his good job on the line for what at the end of the day is a car. :rolleyes:

wicklowstevo

carzony wrote: »

It didn't go to court but lets not forget the '' I'll rape you'' incident

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gardai%20rape%20video%20&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsm.ie%2Fc%2Fgarda-corrib-rape-pipeline&ei=zbrBUb71E-aM7QaQhoH4DA&usg=AFQjCNGzQop2EOfg9ukhf7k6DYNQa_B8kQ&bvm=bv.47883778,d.ZGU

Great bunch of lads so they are

er wasn't that tape shown to have been manipulated by "someone " and them fellas cleared of all wrong doing ?
some how that didn't get the publicity that the original allegation did, strange that.

wicklowstevo

kneemos wrote: »

How do you break someones legs?quite difficult I'd imagine.It's the kind of threat that would indicate you're dealing with an idiot.

Ive both had a leg broken and broken some ones leg , not as tough as your thing really , both while playing sports

Dravokivich

yamaha2013 wrote: »

when texts are taken from a device and put into data form on a spreadsheet, the original texts on the device needs to be in court to corespond text for text. In this instance, the phone was returned to the witness and the accused. Alot went on behind closed (jury) doors. It is shocking that such a mistake could be made , firstly by the gardai but also the judge for not allowing the text messages

Hmm... I thought the mobile networks were meant to store that type of data for such investigations. I recall it being mentioned/proposed a few years ago.

jonsnow

yamaha2013 wrote: »

when texts are taken from a device and put into data form on a spreadsheet, the original texts on the device needs to be in court to corespond text for text. In this instance, the phone was returned to the witness and the accused. Alot went on behind closed (jury) doors. It is shocking that such a mistake could be made , firstly by the gardai but also the judge for not allowing the text messages

I don't believe that the Judge had any choice but to disregard the text messages once the chain of evidence had been broken and the phones handed back to the relevant parties.But it beggars belief that the evidence (the phones) would be handed back to the accused and the witness by the gardai.

It is my understanding that if witnesses to for example a street assault record an incident on their phone. If this comes to the attention of the gardai that phone is seized and they wont get it back until after the trial. They dont just download the footage to laptop or disc but have to holsd onto the phone. It seems absolutely ludicrous that they could hand the phones back in this case when they are integral to the states case.

yore

wicklowstevo wrote: »

er wasn't that tape shown to have been manipulated by "someone " and them fellas cleared of all wrong doing ?
some how that didn't get the publicity that the original allegation did, strange that.

Eh no. They deleted some stuff from the tape and so it was proclaimed "tampered with". Sounds similar to the incident mentioned above where they couldn't use the text evidence without the phones, despite the fact that the networks would have copies of the texts and the phones likely wouldn't (Who would save 600 messages!)

I don't think that the guard ever claimed that it was faked or that they never joked about raping someone.

yore

jonsnow wrote: »

I don't believe that the Judge had any choice but to disregard the text messages once the chain of evidence had been broken and the phones handed back to the relevant parties.But it beggars belief that the evidence (the phones) would be handed back to the accused and the witness by the gardai.

It is my understanding that if witnesses to for example a street assault record an incident on their phone. If this comes to the attention of the gardai that phone is seized and they wont get it back until after the trial. They dont just download the footage to laptop or disc but have to holsd onto the phone. It seems absolutely ludicrous that they could hand the phones back in this case when they are integral to the states case.

One might almost cynically think that some guard, in a bid to make sure his pal wasn't without his phone organised to give it back. "Oh no. Whoops. Ah feck, inadmissible evidence now. Silly me. What a stroke of luck for my friend and comrade"

carzony

wicklowstevo wrote: »

er wasn't that tape shown to have been manipulated by "someone " and them fellas cleared of all wrong doing ?
some how that didn't get the publicity that the original allegation did, strange that.

From what I remember the tourist deleted all the parts from her site seeing and just kept the last part which was the garda saying they were gonna rape her. But because parts of the video were deleted it was considered ''manipulated'':rolleyes::rolleyes:

wicklowstevo

are you sure it wasn't "tampered with in some NGUI office where one of the "tourists " worked ? I goes to show that even the suggestion of rape is enough to destroy any attempt to discover the truth of an issue, isn't that why the woman started shouting rape rape ! when she was being arrested ?
theres such a media spin put on anything that comes out of rossport that it would be unwise to believe anything unless you see it first hand