Being banned from somewhere

Ken.

Purely hypothetical.
A person(lets call him Mick) gets caught shoplifting in Liffey valley shopping centre. He is prosecuted by the shop and banned from going into the centre again.

A year later a government department relocates to Liffey valley (dole office,new driver licence centre etc.).

What happens to Mick?. He's on the dole or needs to get a new licence. Can he enter or would he have to go to the next nearest dole office, ndls centre,etc.?.

Gloomtastic!

And here was me thinking he'd got a job there, sorry!

billie1b

ken wrote: »

Purely hypothetical.
A person(lets call him Mick) gets caught shoplifting in Liffey valley shopping centre. He is prosecuted by the shop and banned from going into the centre again.

A year later a government department relocates to Liffey valley (dole office,new driver licence centre etc.).

What happens to Mick?. He's on the dole or needs to get a new licence. Can he enter or would he have to go to the next nearest dole office, ndls centre,etc.?.

The shop prosecuting him can only ban him from their premises on Liffey Valleys grounds, Liffey Valley would have to bring him to court separately to ban him from the whole shopping complex

Ken.

billie1b wrote: »

The shop prosecuting him can only ban him from their premises on Liffey Valleys grounds, Liffey Valley would have to bring him to court separately to ban him from the whole shopping complex

Imagine they did that.

billie1b

ken wrote: »

Imagine they did that.

If they did that the said person would be granted a certain day and time to go in to do whatever it was, for example, he gets his dole on a wednesday, so he'd have to get an order stating he can enter the premises every wednesday between 10am and 12pm for said reason. Just personal opinion, not fact, I could be totally wrong

the world wonders

ken wrote: »

He is prosecuted by the shop and banned from going into the centre again.

Is this a court order made by a judge banning him from Liffey Valley, or is it a private decision made by the Liffey Valley management not to admit him? If it's the former then he could apply to the court to have the order varied. If it's the latter then he does not have much recourse...

coylemj

billie1b wrote: »

The shop prosecuting him can only ban him from their premises on Liffey Valleys grounds, Liffey Valley would have to bring him to court separately to ban him from the whole shopping complex

No they wouldn't, it's private property so they can bar him from the whole shopping centre if they choose to do so. As long as it's not done on the basis of sexual orientation, race etc. they can ban anyone they want to for any reason. Absurd as it may sound, they could ban everyone with red hair if they wanted to.

However if they had a Government agency as a tenant then they clearly couldn't refuse someone access to that office or they would probably be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

billie1b

coylemj wrote: »

No they wouldn't, it's private property so they can bar him from the whole shopping centre if they choose to do so. As long as it's not done on the basis of sexual orientation, race etc. they can ban anyone they want to for any reason. Absurd as it may sound, they could ban everyone with red hair if they wanted to.

However if they had a Government agency as a tenant then they clearly couldn't refuse someone access to that office or they would probably be in breach of the tenancy agreement.

No, private property or not you have to get a court order to be banned from it, especially shopping centres, my sisters husband is security management in a big shopping centre and anyone they want to ban totally has to go through court

234

billie1b wrote: »

No, private property or not you have to get a court order to be banned from it, especially shopping centres, my sisters husband is security management in a big shopping centre and anyone they want to ban totally has to go through court

I'm afraid that's wrong. Just because your brother in law does things that way doesn't make it a legal requirement.

Once it is private property then you can exclude anybody you like once its not on the basis of the nine classes in the Equality Act.

billie1b

234 wrote: »

I'm afraid that's wrong. Just because your brother in law does things that way doesn't make it a legal requirement.

Once it is private property then you can exclude anybody you like once its not on the basis of the nine classes in the Equality Act.

Yes you can refuse them entry on a day to day basis but to ban them outright (in other words not to come near the place) you need a court order. Its not the way he does it but the way the legal team for the shopping centre does it, he just passes the names on

ted1

billie1b wrote: »

The shop prosecuting him can only ban him from their premises on Liffey Valleys grounds, Liffey Valley would have to bring him to court separately to ban him from the whole shopping complex

Does the complex not have right to refuse admission. Why would a court need to be involved?

234

billie1b wrote: »

Yes you can refuse them entry on a day to day basis but to ban them outright (in other words not to come near the place) you need a court order. Its not the way he does it but the way the legal team for the shopping centre does it, he just passes the names on

Again, no.

The shopping centre is in exactly the same position as any other private property holder. They can ban outright.

However, by getting a court order they can involve the gardai if there is a breach. This option is not available with ordinary trespass to property. It obviously makes more sense for them to do things this way as it acts as a greater deterrent and minimises the situations where private security could create circumstances giving rise to civil liability.

billie1b

234 wrote: »

Again, no.

The shopping centre is in exactly the same position as any other private property holder. They can ban outright.

However, by getting a court order they can involve the gardai if there is a breach. This option is not available with ordinary trespass to property. It obviously makes more sense for them to do things this way as it acts as a greater deterrent and minimises the situations where private security could create circumstances giving rise to civil liability.

Cool, explains a bit more, thanks dude