Government lock up granny for non payment of fine

LuisSuarezLFC

http://www.herald.ie/news/grieving-gran-64-jailed-six-weeks-after-sisters-death-29513916.html

The crooks that run this county have locked up a 64 year old women 6 weeks after her sister died after she feel out a window.

Sean fitzpatrick and all the other bankers and property developers owe hundreds of millions which will never be paid back and we will pay the bill.


*** MODS MOVE IF YOU FELL APPROPIATE***

Cookie_Monster

None of the background stuff is relevent and should not impact on the decision. She has over 4k of fines due and won't pay despite havingh years to do so. Sounds like the right decision to me.

jimmycrackcorm

I'm beginning to get weary about the use of bankers and developers getting away with as an excuse for everything. Simple thing is this lady or any bankers or developers who broke laws should be equally prosecuted.

But the problem is that many of those essentially haven't broken any laws because we didn't create laws that send people to jail for causing a bailout.

LuisSuarezLFC

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

None of the background stuff is relevent and should not impact on the decision. She has over 4k of fines due and won't pay despite havingh years to do so. Sounds like the right decision to me.

Eh why aren't the bankers in jail they screwed us out if 10s of billions. Their the ones the government should be after not grannies who owe 4k which is pocket change in comparison to the banks.

The government are going after the ordinary joe soap

jimmycrackcorm

LuisSuarezLFC wrote: »

Eh why aren't the bankers in jail they screwed us out if 10s of billions. Their the ones the government should be after not grannies who owe 4k which is pocket change in comparison to the banks.

The government are going after the ordinary joe soap

The bankers didn't screw us out of billions, our government at the time did that in guaranteeing the banks.

Amirani

LuisSuarezLFC wrote: »

Eh why aren't the bankers in jail they screwed us out if 10s of billions. Their the ones the government should be after not grannies who owe 4k which is pocket change in comparison to the banks.

The government are going after the ordinary joe soap

If you can answer three questions, I'll agree with you completely.

Can you cite the laws that we could prosecute the bankers under?

How exactly do "Governement lock up granny", was she sentenced in the Dáil?

If this granny's fine was quashed, why would anybody bother paying any fines in the future?

Waitsian

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

None of the background stuff is relevent and should not impact on the decision. She has over 4k of fines due and won't pay despite havingh years to do so. Sounds like the right decision to me.

The whys and wherefores to one side, is a prison sentence appropriate? They couldn't have given her community service?

Scortho

mod9maple wrote: »

The whys and wherefores to one side, is a prison sentence appropriate? They couldn't have given her community service?

It is mad to be locking up people over non payment of fines. I think an hour community service per euro owed would be a much fairer system primarily because locking someone up costs us a fortune.

To the op, we can only prosecute people for crimes that they have committed. You can't prosecute someone if they can't be charged with something.

johnnyskeleton

mod9maple wrote: »

The whys and wherefores to one side, is a prison sentence appropriate? They couldn't have given her community service?

Not everyone who is sent to prison is getting a prison sentence. In this case, she was made aware that if she didn't pay the fines she would serve X amount of days in jail. If she was repeatedly selling contraband on the side of the road, she would most likely have built up that €4k in no time.

Essential points:
1) fines plural so more than one offence;
2) casual trading offences so, while not exactly the most serious of offences, she was depriving normal, tax paying businesses of trade
3) she had several years to pay but didn't,
4) there is nothing to suggest an inability to pay.

johnnyskeleton

Scortho wrote: »

It is mad to be locking up people over non payment of fines. I think an hour community service per euro owed would be a much fairer system primarily because locking someone up costs us a fortune.

And if they don't show up to do their community service, you're back to square one.

zenno

Scortho wrote: »

It is mad to be locking up people over non payment of fines. I think an hour community service per euro owed would be a much fairer system primarily because locking someone up costs us a fortune.

To the op, we can only prosecute people for crimes that they have committed. You can't prosecute someone if they can't be charged with something.

Yes, i agree with this comment above. Locking up old aged pensioners is out of order for a simple thing like this/a fine, all that had to be done was give her community work in looking after folks her own age or older for a couple of weeks and that would benefit these older folk, but locking her up in a prison with hardened criminals is rightly fecked up.

What a fecking kip of a justice system we have here in backward Ireland. I love the country but I despise the bloody idiots that run it.

@ johnnyskeleton

And if they don't show up to do their community service, you're back to square one

Was she even given the option ? no, as far as i know, so what makes you think she wouldn't do this community service over a prison sentence? i'd say she would most definitely do the community service than go to prison.

Scortho

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And if they don't show up to do their community service, you're back to square one.

I know I'd be choosing the community service if i was given the option.
Failure to do community service would see 18 weeks in prison as opposed to 6.

ScouseMouse

And if she was selling tobacco on the streets, not only was she casual trading, it was probably illegal cigs and tobacco which was smuggled in.

So what do we have now?

Smuggling? maybe!
Selling smuggled tobacco? Probably
Illegal casual trading? Convicted!
Not paying court fines for years? Convicted!

Poor innocent granny my eye.

Sam Kade

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

None of the background stuff is relevent and should not impact on the decision. She has over 4k of fines due and won't pay despite havingh years to do so. Sounds like the right decision to me.

Exactly, she already owes 4k in fines so throw her in prison where she will cost the taxpayer €200/day while she is in there

Peanut2011

Sam Kade wrote: »

Exactly, she already owes 4k in fines so throw her in prison where she will cost the taxpayer €200/day while she is in there

What people fail to note here is that she was not thrown in prison because she did not pay her fines, she was thrown in there because she refused to obey the court judgement.

What seems to be at play in Ireland recently is that everyone goes on about bankers and bond holders and so on as if the financial issue gives them a green card against paying their debt. And if you are elderly it seems that should make you even more entitled to do what you want especially as you "paid tax all your life"!!!

Can I remind people of the elderly couple that were evicted and camped out in front of the house and were in all newspapers as poor old couple, which turned out to be couple that had income and other properties but decided one way or another not to pay their homes mortgage.

As long as we have "strategic" defaulters be it mortgage or any loan or bill, the genuine cases will not be able to be helped!

vitani

zenno wrote: »

Yes, i agree with this comment above. Locking up old aged pensioners is out of order for a simple thing like this/a fine, all that had to be done was give her community work in looking after folks her own age or older for a couple of weeks and that would benefit these older folk, but locking her up in a prison with hardened criminals is rightly fecked up.

Leaving aside the question of whether she should be locked up or not, I wouldn't class a 64 year old as an 'old, aged pensioner' and I know quite a few people in their 60s who'd take offence to that.

The Herald had a photo of her 80-something year old sister to accompany the article, probably deliberately chosen to make the woman here seem older and more fragile than she actually is.

Larbre34

Government Courts lock up granny citizen for non payment of fines

FYP there.

I'm an uncle, several times over in fact, I might not bother paying my car tax.

BKtje

I assume that she still has to pay the fines as well or is the prison sentence in place of?

spank_inferno

No one goes to jail for small.fines anyway.

They check in.
Stay in holding area for an hour or so.
Then they are on their way.

micosoft

LuisSuarezLFC wrote: »

Eh why aren't the bankers in jail they screwed us out if 10s of billions. Their the ones the government should be after not grannies who owe 4k which is pocket change in comparison to the banks.

The government are going after the ordinary joe soap

Sure. All laws should be suspended unless you are a banker who lost us 100,000,000 or more.

dharma200

BKtje wrote: »

I assume that she still has to pay the fines as well or is the prison sentence in place of?

When you are sent to prison for non payment, you are serving the fine... If not people would be perpetually in prison....

A lot of people would actually rather go to prison for a few weeks than pay stupid fines....

I really don't think her family circumstances have anything to do with anything, bad timing perhaps , but shouldn't play any part in her sentencing.

I think sending anyone to jail for this type of offence is ridiculous... Jail should be kept for serious dangerous offenders, and alternatives should be found such as community work, tagging etc etc. sending this woman to jail is a pointless excersize and a waste of money.

galwayrush

She goes to prison at a cost to the state and the fines are wiped away.

jimmycrackcorm

galwayrush wrote: »

She goes to prison at a cost to the state and the fines are wiped away.

The most likely scenario is that she gets sent to Mountjoy; Two hours later she gets released due to overcrowding and fines are wiped.

nesf

dharma200 wrote: »

I think sending anyone to jail for this type of offence is ridiculous... Jail should be kept for serious dangerous offenders, and alternatives should be found such as community work, tagging etc etc. sending this woman to jail is a pointless excersize and a waste of money.

I agree, the fine + interest should just be taken from their bank account, salary, pension or assets. Delete as appropriate.

green_bow

this granny sounds like moe in eastenders

micosoft

galwayrush wrote: »

She goes to prison at a cost to the state and the fines are wiped away.

But the other 10,000 people thinking of not paying their fines are now thinking, I could go to prison so I'm going to pay. Therefore the deterrent effect of sending her to jail actually does make a return on the cost of incarcerating her.

I agree to an extent that fines (espeically TV licence) should be taken from income or benefits but not when people are allowed make derisory (€10 a month for a 10k dept). In those cases there should be a punishment/deterrent sentence for creating that much dept when the person should have known they could not realistically pay it off.

Phoebas

nesf wrote: »

I agree, the fine + interest should just be taken from their bank account, salary, pension or assets. Delete as appropriate.

I'm at a loss to understand why this doesn't happen.
afaik (haven't checked, so open to correction here) there is provision in the Fines Act to deduct fines from source but it hasn't been implemented.
It would seem to be a much simpler, cheaper, less controversial solution.

Do other countries sent people to jail for non payment of fines?

nesf

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm at a loss to understand why this doesn't happen.
afaik (haven't checked, so open to correction here) there is provision in the Fines Act to deduct fines from source but it hasn't been implemented.
It would seem to be a much simpler, cheaper, less controversial solution.

Do other countries sent people to jail for non payment of fines?

I know, it's insane. Prison is there to protect society from people, we don't need protection from fine dodgers, just need to punish them.

Cody Pomeray

The Government have already tried to address this. Second time lucky hopefully.

The new bill aims to recover fines by attachment orders (e.g. going into a person's bank account), via the sheriff, or, failing this, community service. Prison remains a last resort.

Fines (Payment and Recovery) Bill 2013

· Every person on whom a fine is imposed will be able to opt to pay the fine by instalments over 12 months.

· Where a person chooses to pay a fine by instalments, an administration fee of up to 10% of the fine may be imposed. The exact percentage to be applied as an administration fee will be set by the Minister by regulation. The administration fee will not apply where the fine is paid in full in a single payment.

· Where a person fails to pay a fine, the court may make an attachment order or a recovery order.Where it is not possible to make either order, the court may make a community service order.

· Where an attachment order or a recovery order are made but the fine or part thereof remains outstanding, the court may make a community service order.

· The Bill creates a new offence of failure to comply with an "attachment order" which will attract on conviction, a fine of up to €2,500 and/or up to 12 months in prison...

· The Bill provides for the sharing of data between the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Protection and the Courts Service.

galwayrush

micosoft wrote: »

But the other 10,000 people thinking of not paying their fines are now thinking, I could go to prison so I'm going to pay. Therefore the deterrent effect of sending her to jail actually does make a return on the cost of incarcerating her.

I agree to an extent that fines (espeically TV licence) should be taken from income or benefits but not when people are allowed make derisory (€10 a month for a 10k dept). In those cases there should be a punishment/deterrent sentence for creating that much dept when the person should have known they could not realistically pay it off.

Person who lives quite near me won't pay a 1500 fine he got for not filing his VAT for a few years. That was about a year ago and he's waiting for ( in his own words ) his 'Garda Taxi' to bring him to Castlerea for what he expects to stay for 2 nights max, possible no night at all Boasts its the easiest 1500 he'll ever make.'

karkhanas

It is perfectly legitimate to bring the bankers into every debate like this whilst there is an apparent lack of will on behalf of the authorities to properly investigate any and all possible wrongdoing by a number of institutions and individuals in Ireland. People may roll their eyes to heaven and ask how much longer shall people refer to Ango, the bailout etc., but the reality is they will continue to do so whilst there is a perception in the general public that certain practices are perfectly acceptable.

I fully agree that we cannot have a situation whereby someone ignores a court order, irrespective of their situation and I do not think the sympathy card is acceptable when someone appears to point blank ignore their obligations.

However, a sense of perspective is needed and on behalf of the authorities, a sense of the public image that something like this creates. I am not overly familiar with how matters like this normally proceed but I would have thought that it would be possible to take money out of whatever source of income she has to pay the debts? Why would this not be enacted when it was apparent that she was neither willing nor able to pay a lump sum in one go?

I would not be surprised that there might exist people who are knowingly trying to use the elevated sense of outrage the financial sector and government to garner sympathy they might not have gotten at a different time, but it remains that there is a very strong public perception out there that certain individuals in the state who can operate with de facto impunity in regards their business dealings. Irrespective of the truth of that perception, it exists and is a reality for a sizable number of people. A newspaper like the Herald is only interested in a catchy head line and for many, the initial indignation regarding a elderly woman being jailed overshadows the facts and background of the story.

My opinion? Deduct an amount at source from her income to pay the fines. Don't tie up precious resources on trivial matters like this but don't allow yourself to fall for a sob story without checking all the facts.

nesf

karkhanas wrote: »

It is perfectly legitimate to bring the bankers into every debate like this whilst there is an apparent lack of will on behalf of the authorities to properly investigate any and all possible wrongdoing by a number of institutions and individuals in Ireland.

Only if people have absolutely no understanding of law or the difficulty in prosecuting white collar crime. Now considering most people have little to no knowledge of the former and the latter is only selectively understood at best normally it's not surprising that we see the bankers brought up in every thread but really it's far from legitimate on any logical grounds. If for a second you think prosecuting someone for non-payment of fines is remotely similar to prosecuting someone for complex financial mismanagement then really I worry about you.

None of this excuses the slowness of the investigations into the banks of course.

karkhanas

nesf wrote: »

Only if people have absolutely no understanding of law or the difficulty in prosecuting white collar crime. Now considering most people have little to no knowledge of the former and the latter is only selectively understood at best normally it's not surprising that we see the bankers brought up in every thread but really it's far from legitimate on any logical grounds.

As long as the perception exists that justice is tiered in our society then people will be comparing every little injustice, perceived or otherwise, to the treatment of the bankers. Whether or not it is actually legitimate is irrelevant.

People think it is.

When the current parties go the country at the next election there will be a sizeable number of people who will vote based on the belief that the current government gave a free ride to certain people and institutions. Relevance, reality and truth are fine but they do not always translate into votes on the ground. So like it or not, people are going to reference the bankers at every turn.

nesf wrote: »

If for a second you think prosecuting someone for non-payment of fines is remotely similar to prosecuting someone for complex financial mismanagement then really I worry about you.

None of this excuses the slowness of the investigations into the banks of course.

I make it quite clear that I do not think prosecuting someone for non payment of fines is in anyway similar to prosecuting someone for financial mismanagement.

But I would appreciate if you did not make statements in regards how you feel towards me. I do not need your 'worry' and I have reported the above comment, I feel it is an attempt to undermine my opinion by equating me with a person who is not wholly competent.

AlekSmart

karkhanas wrote: »

.

People think it is.

When the current parties go the country at the next election there will be a sizeable number of people who will vote based on the belief that the current government gave a free ride to certain people and institutions. Relevance, reality and truth are fine but they do not always translate into votes on the ground. So like it or not, people are going to reference the bankers at every turn.

But I would appreciate if you did not make statements in regards how you feel towards me. I do not need your 'worry' and I have reported the above comment, I feel it is an attempt to undermine my opinion by equating me with a person who is not wholly competent.

A very dubious assertion I feel.

Since the visit to Mr Lenihans house,a great deal of investigation and comment has gone into the events which led to Ireland Teo becoming so emasculated.

Perhaps Karkhanas is equating these "people",whom he/she suggests will reference everything against "The Bankers" with the majority of the electorate....perhaps-perhaps not,and for sure not as cut and dried as the retort would suggest.

Lack of interest and a total ignorance of the principles of "Greater Good" are what have marked Irish Electorates out for our 90 years of Self-Governance..so when quoting "The Bankers" offer a sector of this electorate some form of moral get-out-jail card,they will grasp it with glee.

The rest of us will enquire,assess and make our own mind up.

So,I'm afraid I'll go with nesf on this one...:(

karkhanas

AlekSmart wrote: »

A very dubious assertion I feel.

Since the visit to Mr Lenihans house,a great deal of investigation and comment has gone into the events which led to Ireland Teo becoming so emasculated.

Perhaps Karkhanas is equating these "people",whom he/she suggests will reference everything against "The Bankers" with the majority of the electorate....perhaps-perhaps not,and for sure not as cut and dried as the retort would suggest.

Lack of interest and a total ignorance of the principles of "Greater Good" are what have marked Irish Electorates out for our 90 years of Self-Governance..so when quoting "The Bankers" offer a sector of this electorate some form of moral get-out-jail card,they will grasp it with glee.

The rest of us will enquire,assess and make our own mind up.

So,I'm afraid I'll go with nesf on this one...:(

It is a reality that people will reference the bankers wherever possible. This thread has ample proof of that.

For the record I do not think that there is any connection between this woman and her actions and the bankers, but my point is that relevance to the issue is not a strong point in the minds of many of the voters out there. I think you have taken me up wrong and quite possibly that other poster has as well.

I am not saying that it is right to bring up bankers and any real or perceived financial irregularities in certain institutions but that you cannot seriously think that people will not equate the apparent differences in how people appeared to be treated by the law. I think that whilst people hold these views and whilst there appears to be no real will to investigate what happened in regards such things as the behaviour of certain individuals people will feel perfectly justified in holding up two examples of what is believed to be the difference in how people are treated by the state. It is very similar to remarking on the length of the sentence given to the guy who imported the garlic and sentences given to sex offenders.

Like is or not, this issue resonates with people, especially people who are not inclined to, as you say ''enquire,assess and make our own mind up'' hence the fact it is being used to sell copies of the Herald.

nesf

karkhanas wrote: »

I make it quite clear that I do not think prosecuting someone for non payment of fines is in anyway similar to prosecuting someone for financial mismanagement.

But I would appreciate if you did not make statements in regards how you feel towards me. I do not need your 'worry' and I have reported the above comment, I feel it is an attempt to undermine my opinion by equating me with a person who is not wholly competent.

You made a general point, I made a general point. The phrasing was meant to be aimed generally not at you particularly. Apologies if it caused offense.

To be clear I don't feel anything towards you. Really, you haven't crossed my thoughts at all.

karkhanas

nesf wrote: »

You made a general point, I made a general point. The phrasing was meant to be aimed generally not at you particularly. Apologies if it caused offense.

To be clear I don't feel anything towards you. Really, you haven't crossed my thoughts at all.

I might take your apology as being sincere if you did not then try make me out as some sort of a non entity.

You wrote the above post, I did cross your mind and you obviously do have some sort of feeling towards me.

I'd prefer you didn't reply to this, I've only joined this website and am not interested in debating anything other than political points thank you.

Have a good day.

Godge

karkhanas wrote: »

It is a reality that people will reference the bankers wherever possible. This thread has ample proof of that.

For the record I do not think that there is any connection between this woman and her actions and the bankers, but my point is that relevance to the issue is not a strong point in the minds of many of the voters out there. I think you have taken me up wrong and quite possibly that other poster has as well.

I am not saying that it is right to bring up bankers and any real or perceived financial irregularities in certain institutions but that you cannot seriously think that people will not equate the apparent differences in how people appeared to be treated by the law. I think that whilst people hold these views and whilst there appears to be no real will to investigate what happened in regards such things as the behaviour of certain individuals people will feel perfectly justified in holding up two examples of what is believed to be the difference in how people are treated by the state. It is very similar to remarking on the length of the sentence given to the guy who imported the garlic and sentences given to sex offenders.

Like is or not, this issue resonates with people, especially people who are not inclined to, as you say ''enquire,assess and make our own mind up'' hence the fact it is being used to sell copies of the Herald.

All well and good but you do accept that there is any connection between this woman and the bankers so you are generally in agreement with nesf.

Now people may feel justified in holding them up as two examples, they are people who unlike yourself, myself and nesf are people who are emotionally reacting to something rather than rationally reacting to something.

There is a lot of misdirected anger and angst out there as well as a huge collective failure to accept responsibility for both individual stupidity in financial issues and that the bailouts were legally brought in by a government we elected.

johnnyskeleton

zenno wrote: »

@ johnnyskeleton

Was she even given the option ? no, as far as i know, so what makes you think she wouldn't do this community service over a prison sentence? i'd say she would most definitely do the community service than go to prison.

You were making the general point rather than this specific case but in any event, the issue is that a court decides the appropriate sentence and if the person does not comply voluntarily (whether fine or c/s) the enforcement mechanism is the default in prison instead. Maybe having a deduction from welfare etc would be a better option than jail, but that's not really in place yet.

To answer your point about the specific lady - how do you know that community service is suitable for her? A judge heard what she was doing - selling contraband or goods without a licence - and decided that the appropriate sentence was for her to pay back someone of the money she made this way by means of a fine. Community service is suitable for minor assaults etc, but is it the appropriate punishment for financial/commercial offences?

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

OIf for a second you think prosecuting someone for non-payment of fines is remotely similar to prosecuting someone for complex financial mismanagement then really I worry about you.

Without wanting to speak for that poster, it is perfectly legitimate to comment on "an apparent lack of will on behalf of the authorities to properly investigate any and all possible wrongdoing by a number of institutions and individuals in Ireland."

That is not the same as equating unpaid fines with allegations of white collar crime. It's a question of the state's motivation to administer justice in an even handed, uniform way.

Godge

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Without wanting to speak for that poster, it is perfectly legitimate to comment on "an apparent lack of will on behalf of the authorities to properly investigate any and all possible wrongdoing by a number of institutions and individuals in Ireland."

That is not the same as equating unpaid fines with allegations of white collar crime. It's a question of the state's motivation to administer justice in an even handed, uniform way.

But you are juxtaposing one situation where there has been a court finding that there has been a breach of the relevant legislation and a suitable sentence is being imposed with another situation where nobody knows whether any law has been broken.

They are not comparable.

Now if you had a situation where say Fingleton has been prosecuted for his failures but Fitzpatrick had not, at least you would be on the same issue.

AlekSmart

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You were making the general point rather than this specific case but in any event, the issue is that a court decides the appropriate sentence and if the person does not comply voluntarily (whether fine or c/s) the enforcement mechanism is the default in prison instead. Maybe having a deduction from welfare etc would be a better option than jail, but that's not really in place yet.

To answer your point about the specific lady - how do you know that community service is suitable for her? A judge heard what she was doing - selling contraband or goods without a licence - and decided that the appropriate sentence was for her to pay back someone of the money she made this way by means of a fine. Community service is suitable for minor assaults etc, but is it the appropriate punishment for financial/commercial offences?

Could it be that the Judge,in this case,made a good call ?

http://www.herald.ie/news/grieving-gran-out-of-jail-in-time-for-tragic-sisters-mass-29534325.html

But Mrs Teeling has now paid €2,500 of the total €4,000 fine – allowing her to be released after spending a week behind bars.

Mrs Teeling's fines date back several years and relate to breaches of casual trading laws involving tobacco.

Although,one could well ask how "several years" worth of fines came to be accumulated without some custodial being invoked somewhat earlier ??

Cody Pomeray

Godge wrote: »

But you are juxtaposing one situation where there has been a court finding that there has been a breach of the relevant legislation and a suitable sentence is being imposed with another situation where nobody knows whether any law has been broken.

They are not comparable.

Juxtaposition is not synonymous with comparison. I am not comparing the two offences. I am commenting on priority and the allocation of legal resources.

It is fair and legitimate to comment on priorities and resources. I don't doubt that this couple are in the wrong.

State agencies ought to prioritise and prosecutors should be employed to arraign those who commit true criminal offences, and not these regulatory offenses which could easily be dealt with in a more sensible and efficient manner.

djpbarry

karkhanas wrote: »

It is perfectly legitimate to bring the bankers into every debate like this whilst there is an apparent lack of will on behalf of the authorities to properly investigate any and all possible wrongdoing by a number of institutions and individuals in Ireland.

And how do you know there is an apparent "lack of will"? Bear in mind that, as far as I am aware, three former Anglo directors have had formal criminal charges brought against them and are due to appear in court.