Assault

cashie88

Hey guys!

Any advice would be appreciated.

I was out last night when my ex girlfriends current boyfriend followed me out to the front of the pub and assaulted me. I have to stress I have not been with my ex for over a year. I have no ill will against her or her new boyfriend and did not instigate a fight in anyway. This makes it more confusing to me. Anyway He punched me in the face and head before throwing me against the door. I did not make any reprocussions or attempt to fight back in anyway. The bouncers managed to stop the fight and the guards were called and the man was arrested. I was left with a bruised head, ear and a very very swollen bloody and cut lip. I went to the emergency doctor incase of any serious damage. He said i was very lucky that my injuries were not very serious. When I went into the garda today to make a statement i was told to come back at the weekend when the garda involved was back on duty. Through the power that is social media i found out this man was released within minutes of being taken away from me? Is that right? I fully intend on getting on to a solicitor but in this kind of case what is usually the next step forward?

Cheers

chops018

Maybe the ex said something about you that set him off - possibly lies about you.

Anyway, if you have no long term damage then practically I would suggest maybe trying to talk this out and let him know that you want no involvement with them and once he pays your doctor's bill then that will be the end of it, once nothing like that happens again, and make sure he knows that if it does then he will feel the full extent of the law.

(Obviously meeting/going to them maybe with their and your family present so nothing like this happens during it).

If you really want to then go see a Solicitor and the Guards and have him punished etc. then by all means do. But I think we are too quick to do things like this, when it could be sorted by other means first, and it won't see anyone's future being damaged over a stupid drunken mistake..

It's up to yourself, and I know very little details of the background and all that. So I suppose the above might not be an option.

tomdempsey200

chops018 wrote: »

Maybe the ex said something about you that set him off - possibly lies about you.

Anyway, if you have no long term damage then practically I would suggest maybe trying to talk this out and let him know that you want no involvement with them and once he pays your doctor's bill then that will be the end of it, once nothing like that happens again, and make sure he knows that if it does then he will feel the full extent of the law.

(Obviously meeting/going to them maybe with their and your family present so nothing like this happens during it).

If you really want to then go see a Solicitor and the Guards and have him punished etc. then by all means do. But I think we are too quick to do things like this, when it could be sorted by other means first, and it won't see anyone's future being damaged over a stupid drunken mistake..

It's up to yourself, and I know very little details of the background and all that. So I suppose the above might not be an option.

you've got to be kidding right?

h2005

chops018 wrote: »

Maybe the ex said something about you that set him off - possibly lies about you.

Anyway, if you have no long term damage then practically I would suggest maybe trying to talk this out and let him know that you want no involvement with them and once he pays your doctor's bill then that will be the end of it, once nothing like that happens again, and make sure he knows that if it does then he will feel the full extent of the law.

(Obviously meeting/going to them maybe with their and your family present so nothing like this happens during it).

If you really want to then go see a Solicitor and the Guards and have him punished etc. then by all means do. But I think we are too quick to do things like this, when it could be sorted by other means first, and it won't see anyone's future being damaged over a stupid drunken mistake..

It's up to yourself, and I know very little details of the background and all that. So I suppose the above might not be an option.

I wouldn't do any of this. Talk to the guard and go from there. I wouldn't get the solicitor just yet.

cashie88

Cheers for your reply and I appreciate the advice. In a perfect world maybe that would be the way to go. But i dont think its justice to pretty much get an apology so they can avoid court. Its not sincere. The law is there for a reason And being drunk is not a reasonable excuse because at the end of the day if it was not for the bouncers things could have been alot worse. He surely needs to face up to the consequences of his actions?

chops018

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

you've got to be kidding right?

Why does everything always have to be about arresting and convicting someone.

It shouldn't always be necessary, there is no long term damage, it would seem he got a few punches and yes was indeed assaulted.

Something small like a row could be easily talked out amicably and peacefully without the need for Guards and Solicitors.

It wasn't a random attack - if it was I would be all for telling him to see the Guard as quick as he could, as no way should anyone be subject to a random attack. No one should be subject to any attack obviously, but it can be sorted other ways.

It's just a practical view on the matter.. It's possible for these things to be resolved. The man might have never hit a person in his life, he might not be a scumbag and could have a bright future ahead and something stupid where he lost his cool could follow him for the rest of his life. Fights happen, no one was badly hurt. Obviously it needs to be sorted, but it doesn't have to mean a conviction.

Again, it is completely up to the OP to proceed in whatever way he wishes/thinks is best for himself and everyone.. we don't know the full facts surrounding the incident.

cashie88

chops018 wrote: »

Why does everything always have to be about arresting and convicting someone.

It shouldn't always be necessary, there is no long term damage, it would seem he got a few punches and yes was indeed assaulted.

Something small like a row could be easily talked out amicably and peacefully without the need for Guards and Solicitors.

It wasn't a random attack - if it was I would be all for telling him to see the Guard as quick as he could, as no way should anyone be subject to a random attack. No one should be subject to any attack obviously, but it can be sorted other ways.

It's just a practical view on the matter.. It's possible for these things to be resolved. The man might have never hit a person in his life, he might not be a scumbag and could have a bright future ahead and something stupid where he lost his cool could follow him for the rest of his life. Fights happen, no one was badly hurt. Obviously it needs to be sorted, but it doesn't have to mean a conviction.

I disagree completley. These things need to be talked out is what babies do in the school yard. Regardless of the extent of the injuries he broke the law.

Red Crow

Someone who sought the OP out, followed them and assaulted them deserves to have a record. Somebody who takes the law into their own hands unnecessarily deserves to have a record. I'd be pressing charges and maybe this fella might think twice about hitting someone.

chops018

cashie88 wrote: »

Cheers for your reply and I appreciate the advice. In a perfect world maybe that would be the way to go. But i dont think its justice to pretty much get an apology so they can avoid court. Its not sincere. The law is there for a reason And being drunk is not a reasonable excuse because at the end of the day if it was not for the bouncers things could have been alot worse. He surely needs to face up to the consequences of his actions?

That is completely fair enough. I was just posting what I thought. We don't know the full facts, and if that is the way you wish to proceed and do indeed want to see justice then I wish you the best of luck, and I hope you do get the justice you feel he deserves.

As I said we don't know the full facts, and it is agreeable that it could have ended up being worse.

cashie88

A bit irrelevant now nd a thick question 😹 but what does OP stand for?

chops018

cashie88 wrote: »

A bit irrelevant now nd a thick question 😹 but what does OP stand for?

Original Poster.. so the person who started the thread.

cashie88

chops018 wrote: »

Original Poster.. so the person who started the thread.

Oh right haha thanks

obplayer

chops018 wrote: »

Why does everything always have to be about arresting and convicting someone.

It shouldn't always be necessary, there is no long term damage, it would seem he got a few punches and yes was indeed assaulted.

Something small like a row could be easily talked out amicably and peacefully without the need for Guards and Solicitors.

It wasn't a random attack - if it was I would be all for telling him to see the Guard as quick as he could, as no way should anyone be subject to a random attack. No one should be subject to any attack obviously, but it can be sorted other ways.

It's just a practical view on the matter.. It's possible for these things to be resolved. The man might have never hit a person in his life, he might not be a scumbag and could have a bright future ahead and something stupid where he lost his cool could follow him for the rest of his life. Fights happen, no one was badly hurt. Obviously it needs to be sorted, but it doesn't have to mean a conviction.

Again, it is completely up to the OP to proceed in whatever way he wishes/thinks is best for himself and everyone.. we don't know the full facts surrounding the incident.

What a disgraceful comment and view. On the evidence we have been given a man is assaulted for no reason, a serious assault mind, not a shove or slap but an assault which could easily have led to very serious injuries and you advocate not going to the Guards? If he ends with a conviction for the rest of his life then that is exactly what we need to try and dissuade other scumbags from doing the same. He deserves a custodial sentence, there is no excuse for one adult striking another in anything except defence of one's self or defence of another.

Nekarsulm

cashie 88, regardless of what you decide to do, i would suggest you photograph the damage to your face and also get a copy of any cctv which records the assault. Before the tape gets written over. best of luck.

chops018

obplayer wrote: »

What a disgraceful comment and view. On the evidence we have been given a man is assaulted for no reason, a serious assault mind, not a shove or slap but an assault which could easily have led to very serious injuries and you advocate not going to the Guards? If he ends with a conviction for the rest of his life then that is exactly what we need to try and dissuade other scumbags from doing the same. He deserves a custodial sentence, there is no excuse for one adult striking another in anything except defence of one's self or defence of another.

People have suffered worse in scraps on the football pitch where people lose their cool, (not sure the extent of the injuries, so apologies if they are bad, but from reading it just seems like some cuts and bruises), and you don't see anyone rushing to get them convicted.

How do you know this person is a scumbag? There is potentially a huge variety of factors that could be involved. If it does go to court the judge may not convict him at all.

There are numerous other defences available to a defendant. Please don't make such a comment unless you have studied the intricacies of Criminal Law.

cashie88

The extent of the injuries is irrelevant. The fact is it was not just one punch nd walk away. There was pure intention to cause harm and it only stopped because the bouncers intervened. And as i said o did nothing to provoke it. It was intentional. Say a burgular was robbing ur house and didn think u were home and u walked on him. U wouldnt sit down and have a cup of tea and hug it out. Youd be on to the guards straight away!

If we think mere apology would leave us get away with things law and order in society would not function. The law is there for a reason!

chops018

Nekarsulm wrote: »

cashie 88, regardless of what you decide to do, i would suggest you photograph the damage to your face and also get a copy of any cctv which records the assault. Before the tape gets written over. best of luck.

Even though I do still agree with my view somewhat, this has been the best comment on the thread so far.

chops018

cashie88 wrote: »

The extent of the injuries is irrelevant. The fact is it was not just one punch nd walk away. There was pure intention to cause harm and it only stopped because the bouncers intervened. And as i said o did nothing to provoke it. It was intentional. Say a burgular was robbing ur house and didn think u were home and u walked on him. U wouldnt sit down and have a cup of tea and hug it out. Youd be on to the guards straight away!

If we think mere apology would leave us get away with things law and order in society would not function. The law is there for a reason!

Not to be smart at all. But everyone on here seems to be missing my point. There is lot's of factors to be taken into account, and yes there is a law there for a reason, but that doesn't mean it should always be used.

As I said, if you do want justice then go ahead and best of luck.

The extent of the injuries will be highly relevant.... A good Solicitor could get this chap away with a "don't do it again" and a donation to the poor box. I've seen it myself, numerous times.

obplayer

chops018 wrote: »

People have suffered worse in scraps on the football pitch where people lose their cool, (not sure the extent of the injuries, so apologies if they are bad, but from reading it just seems like some cuts and bruises), and you don't see anyone rushing to get them convicted.

How do you know this person is a scumbag? There is potentially a huge variety of factors that could be involved. If it does go to court the judge may not convict him at all.

There are numerous other defences available to a defendant. Please don't make such a comment unless you have studied the intricacies of Criminal Law.

First of all I will make whatever comments I choose within what the MODS allow thank you. Having played many sports I fully understand that injuries happen when playing them, they are not however normally done deliberately or with malice aforethought and where they are they should be subject to the law also. I believe he is a scumbag because the evidence is that he followed this man out of the premises and assaulted him without any assault, attempted or otherwise, on his person. As to the 'other defences available' I will leave that to the lawyers who make their living from such things; I am discussing the moral law. To follow a man out of the premises and assault him is wrong and the only way we will stop such things happening is to convict such scumbags and enforce the simple rule that assaulting people is wrong.

chops018

obplayer wrote: »

First of all I will make whatever comments I choose within what the MODS allow thank you. Having played many sports I fully understand that injuries happen when playing them, they are not however normally done deliberately or with malice aforethought and where they are they should be subject to the law also. I believe he is a scumbag because the evidence is that he followed this man out of the premises and assaulted him without any assault, attempted or otherwise, on his person. As to the 'other defences available' I will leave that to the lawyers who make their living from such things; I am discussing the moral law. To follow a man out of the premises and assault him is wrong and the only way we will stop such things happening is to convict such scumbags and enforce the simple rule that assaulting people is wrong.

I fully agree.

But as I said, I don't think this is always necessary.. especially if there is relationships involved.. Tempers may flare, there was alcohol involved, we don't know what or if the ex-girlfriend said anything that may have provoked him into committing the attack.

Nekarsulm

chops 018, I cannot remember the Latin term, but I think that people taking part in a team sport or other activity accept a certin amount of risk. As you say, he may well talk free from a Court without conviction but if the OP and the Guards do not persue the matter; then he certinlly wil .

obplayer

chops018 wrote: »

I fully agree.

But as I said, I don't think this is always necessary.. especially if there is relationships involved.. Tempers may flare, there was alcohol involved, we don't know what or if the ex-girlfriend said anything that may have provoked him into committing the attack.

Fine, I will leave it at that.

Regards

chops018

Nekarsulm wrote: »

chops 018, I cannot remember the Latin term, but I think that people taking part in a team sport or other activity accept a certin amount of risk. As you say, he may well talk free from a Court without conviction but if the OP and the Guards do not persue the matter; then he certinlly wil .

Non injuria volenti?

I'm not talking about an injury from a tackle btw.. I'm talking about when tempers are high and there is an actual fight in a sports match.

Look, I understand where you are all coming from. The act was wrong, but I just don't think the avenue of looking for a conviction is always necessary. Most of the time yes, more than likely in this situation yes, but considering all party's are known to each other I thought it might have been sorted another way before going to such extremities which can see a person's future being possibly ruined.

A conviction here will not deter future scumbags from committing such crimes (and no I don't have any statistics to back that up, but look at every town in Ireland every weekend and there will be numerous rows.. the Guards will arrive, break it up and send the people in the other direction of eachother - this doesn't always happen and they may very well arrest the people, but I have seen it happening, and this shows the Guards even know that things can be sorted by breaking it up and sending them home or the other way possibly without anything else coming from it).

moc moc a moc

chops018 wrote: »

People have suffered worse in scraps on the football pitch where people lose their cool

People have also died as the result of a single punch to the head. This is utterly unacceptable behaviour and the perpetrator needs to learn this; the hard way if needs be, for the sake of any potential future victims.

chops018 wrote: »

A conviction here will not deter future scumbags from committing such crimes

Maybe it will deter this particular scumbag, which will be better than nothing.

aN.Droid

Doublelime wrote: »

Moderator edited: removing deleted post.

Cya.

On topic: This guy was out to do harm. It was premeditated and he deserves to be punished. Who knows what might happen the next time he decides to do this because he was not punished this time.

OP push the guards to press charges and I hope that any pain you suffored is alleviated quickly.

cashie88

hey guys,

we are all going to have different opinions no need to get hostile with each other. rainbows and bunny rabbits and all that jazz!

The latest is that I have heard he is saying around the town that I started it because I was 'making comments' to him all night. This is not true. Honestly I never had a problem with this chap or my ex. This to me now is more distressing then getting punched because my name will be tarnished by a lie

aN.Droid

cashie88 wrote: »

hey guys,

we are all going to have different opinions no need to get hostile with each other. rainbows and bunny rabbits and all that jazz!

The latest is that I have heard he is saying around the town that I started it because I was 'making comments' to him all night. This is not true. Honestly I never had a problem with this chap or my ex. This to me now is more distressing then getting punched because my name will be tarnished by a lie

Get cctv footage ASAP before it is recorded over. It will show him as the agressor.

I am sure a conviction against him will clear your name very easily.

Pat Mustard

cashie88 wrote: »

hey guys,

we are all going to have different opinions no need to get hostile with each other. rainbows and bunny rabbits and all that jazz!

The latest is that I have heard he is saying around the town that I started it because I was 'making comments' to him all night. This is not true. Honestly I never had a problem with this chap or my ex. This to me now is more distressing then getting punched because my name will be tarnished by a lie

Options:

1. Make a complaint to Gardai about the criminal offence of assault.
2. Check to see if the guy has a job or any assets and then make an appointment to see a solicitor about a civil action for assault. No point in suing a turnip.
3. If you have financial losses, such as broken teeth, spectacles or torn clothing, consider applying for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board asap.
4. Take advice on defamation of character if you have been hard done by. Again, pointless to sue somebody from whom recovery of damages will be impossible. Remember time limits for taking action here, and if necessary take advice.

The previous poster made a good point about the CCTV. It will not be around for long so you need to act.

seb65

chops018 wrote: »

People have suffered worse in scraps on the football pitch where people lose their cool, (not sure the extent of the injuries, so apologies if they are bad, but from reading it just seems like some cuts and bruises), and you don't see anyone rushing to get them convicted.

How do you know this person is a scumbag? There is potentially a huge variety of factors that could be involved. If it does go to court the judge may not convict him at all.

There are numerous other defences available to a defendant. Please don't make such a comment unless you have studied the intricacies of Criminal Law.

Perhaps you might expand on the other defences available to this defendant, from the facts given by the OP?

chops018

seb65 wrote: »

Perhaps you might expand on the other defences available to this defendant, from the facts given by the OP?

It would be extremely difficult without hearing the story from the defendant.

But off the top of my head - provocation, intoxication. Although they will not be complete defences, they are still available to him and may help greatly depending on the defendant's Solicitor and Judge. It could very well be taking into account when determining the penalty imposed, and as I said in a post above that penalty may very well be a donation to the poor box - in essence, being let off without a conviction, or else being given the Probation Act.

I'm not saying the above would work, just using them to add to the discussion as they are a possibility.

More than likely if the OP does proceed it will be a run of the mill Criminal case in the DC anyway which could either see him get a few months and a fine, none at all but suspended and a fine, none but suspended, a fine, a donation to the poor box, or nothing.

234

chops018 wrote: »

It would be extremely difficult without hearing the story from the defendant.

But off the top of my head - provocation, intoxication. Although they will not be complete defences, they are still available to him and may help greatly depending on the defendant's Solicitor and Judge. It could very well be taking into account when determining the penalty imposed, and as I said in a post above that penalty may very well be a donation to the poor box - in essence, being let off without a conviction, or else being given the Probation Act.

I'm not saying the above would work, just using them to add to the discussion as they are a possibility.

More than likely if the OP does proceed it will be a run of the mill Criminal case in the DC anyway which could either see him get a few months and a fine, none at all but suspended and a fine, none but suspended, a fine, a donation to the poor box, or nothing.

Provocation only applies to murder charges to downgrade the conviction to one of manslaughter.

Triangla

OP You are the victim of a crime.

I think having a quiet word with someone who leathered you outside a pub is a bit daft to be honest.

Gardai and the courts exist for a reason. My advice is to follow the options available to you and seek a prosecution. As an adult the attacker is responsible for his actions.

I hope you follow up on this.

Allknowing

chops018 wrote: »

It would be extremely difficult without hearing the story from the defendant.

But off the top of my head - provocation, intoxication. Although they will not be complete defences, they are still available to him and may help greatly depending on the defendant's Solicitor and Judge. It could very well be taking into account when determining the penalty imposed, and as I said in a post above that penalty may very well be a donation to the poor box - in essence, being let off without a conviction, or else being given the Probation Act.

I'm not saying the above would work, just using them to add to the discussion as they are a possibility.

More than likely if the OP does proceed it will be a run of the mill Criminal case in the DC anyway which could either see him get a few months and a fine, none at all but suspended and a fine, none but suspended, a fine, a donation to the poor box, or nothing.

I believe you are referring to mitigating factors rather than defence.

chops018

234 wrote: »

Provocation only applies to murder charges to downgrade the conviction to one of manslaughter.

Not true. They only apply to murder charges as a complete defence, whereas they can apply to other crimes to mitigate the penalty..... this is all reclaiming knowledge from my head, so apologies if I am wrong, and if I am then I will stand corrected.

Yes, mitigating factors..... but, for something like what would seem like section 2 assault it could be enough for the judge to let him away with it!

As I said, I've seen provocation being used in section 2 assault cases in the DC (although not being explicitly stated as provocation, but the reasoning used by the Solicitor definitively correlated as such), and ending up in a donation to the poor box and thus no conviction.

EDIT: I saw someone said I was talking about mitigating factors.... and I suppose, looking back now, I should have said mitigating factors instead of a defence.

Allknowing

chops018 wrote: »

Not true. They only apply to murder charges as a complete defence, whereas they can apply to other crimes to mitigate the penalty..... this is all reclaiming knowledge from my head, so apologies if I am wrong, and if I am then I will stand corrected.

Yes, mitigating factors..... but, for something like what would seem like section 2 assault it could be enough for the judge to let him away with it!

As I said, I've seen provocation being used in section 2 assault cases in the DC (although not being explicitly stated as provocation, but the reasoning used by the Solicitor definitively correlated as such), and ending up in a donation to the poor box and thus no conviction.

EDIT: I saw someone said I was talking about mitigating factors.... and I suppose, looking back now, I should have said mitigating factors instead of a defence.

Your welcome :-)

234

chops018 wrote: »

EDIT: I saw someone said I was talking about mitigating factors.... and I suppose, looking back now, I should have said mitigating factors instead of a defence.

Indeed.

DC not the best place to see the law, as such, in action.

Defences go to liability. They are separate from considerations when sentencing. Though obviously there can be factual overlap.

hullaballoo

chops018 wrote: »

Not true. They only apply to murder charges as a complete defence, whereas they can apply to other crimes to mitigate the penalty..... this is all reclaiming knowledge from my head, so apologies if I am wrong, and if I am then I will stand corrected.

I'm just going to point out to you that you said the following earlier in this thread:

chops018 wrote: »

There are numerous other defences available to a defendant. Please don't make such a comment unless you have studied the intricacies of Criminal Law.

I think that if you are going to accuse someone else of being unfamiliar with the "intricacies" of criminal law, you ought to at least know the difference between a defence and a plea in mitigation.

Also, you have referred to the incident in this thread as a fight on a number of occasions. A fight has to have more than one aggressor. On the basis of what has been said in this thread, there was only one. It is basically an unprovoked assault. In my view, a decent prosecutor could turn the involvement of alcohol (if any) into an aggravating factor.

Anyway, each to their own in terms of how they wish to see justice done but it doesn't seem to me to be a case where there is any real prospect of reconciliation.

chops018

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm just going to point out to you that you said the following earlier in this thread:



I think that if you are going to accuse someone else of being unfamiliar with the "intricacies" of criminal law, you ought to at least know the difference between a defence and a plea in mitigation.

Also, you have referred to the incident in this thread as a fight on a number of occasions. A fight has to have more than one aggressor. On the basis of what has been said in this thread, there was only one. It is basically an unprovoked assault. In my view, a decent prosecutor could turn the involvement of alcohol (if any) into an aggravating factor.

Anyway, each to their own in terms of how they wish to see justice done but it doesn't seem to me to be a case where there is any real prospect of reconciliation.

I'm very familiar between the difference of a defence and a plea in mitigation. I was unfamiliar with the precedence on the defence of provocation which is why I said I would stand corrected regarding whether it could or couldn't be used in a plea for mitigation or whether it was purely a defence for a murder charge to be brought down to manslaughter.

It has been 2 years since my Criminal FE1 and 3 years since my Masters in Criminal Justice, even longer since Criminal Law in my undergrad. And I haven't been working the Criminal side of things for a good while either, so excuse me if I did get a bit hazy. Obviously I need a little brush up. But the other post from the poster which I said not to be commenting on such (which I apologize now after reading back over it, I shouldn't of said it), but it did look from his posts that he didn't have a full understanding of such an area - as evidently I need some brushing up on myself - but I have seen things like this coming before a Judge and the defendant getting off, which is what I was trying to discuss later in the thread.

Earlier though I did suggest reconciliation, but, the OP doesn't seem to think that will work. The only reason I suggested that was because there was a prior relationship and all parties were personally known. So I thought it might have been the best avenue before going down the justice system.

chops018

234 wrote: »

Indeed.

DC not the best place to see the law, as such, in action.

Defences go to liability. They are separate from considerations when sentencing. Though obviously there can be factual overlap.

Yeah tbh I probably took this discussion way to in depth in the law, and then got a bit confused myself as I have been pulling all this from the top of my head and haven't read a criminal law book for a while.

But in actual fact, it is more than likely a simple case for the DC that they will have seen a 1,000 times or more.. and will probably depend on the Judge on the day for the outcome etc etc. No one can say for sure. By the looks of it, he more than likely would be convicted, but it is possible he may get out of it.

doublej

There have been a number of posters advising OP to secure the CCTV footage.
If there is a criminal investigation, can a civilian seek evidence such as a tape or disc to provide to the Guards and does this affect the chain of evidence.
Secondly, there may be a variety of reasons why an establishment may refuse to hand over their property( disc/tape) to a civilian or even confirm its existence. You do not have a right to view a tape if that recording was made on property that is private, nor do you have a right to secure the tape into your possession.
You, or your solicitor can request that any tape or recording made at the premises on x date or at y hour, x date be preserved but the owner of the tape is not obliged to accede.
If the Guards seek the tape, he can be obliged to allow it to be viewed on the premises but can choose to request a replacement tape or disc in lieu of the recorded product.
Any suggestion that a business owner has an obligation to provide his time and his property to assist the pursuit of a civil claim is in error.

234

doublej wrote: »

There have been a number of posters advising OP to secure the CCTV footage.
If there is a criminal investigation, can a civilian seek evidence such as a tape or disc to provide to the Guards and does this affect the chain of evidence.
Secondly, there may be a variety of reasons why an establishment may refuse to hand over their property( disc/tape) to a civilian or even confirm its existence. You do not have a right to view a tape if that recording was made on property that is private, nor do you have a right to secure the tape into your possession.
You, or your solicitor can request that any tape or recording made at the premises on x date or at y hour, x date be preserved but the owner of the tape is not obliged to accede.
If the Guards seek the tape, he can be obliged to allow it to be viewed on the premises but can choose to request a replacement tape or disc in lieu of the recorded product.
Any suggestion that a business owner has an obligation to provide his time and his property to assist the pursuit of a civil claim is in error.

This is all so wrong. You could just make a request under the Data Protection Acts.

doublej

CCTV not covered by DPA, only computer, manual and paper files are.

Pro Hoc Vice

doublej wrote: »

CCTV not covered by DPA, only computer, manual and paper files are.

The Data Commissioner seems to think otherwise,


6.3 What if I am asked for a copy of CCTV footage?

Any person whose image has been recorded has a right to be given a copy of the information recorded. To exercise that right, a person must make an application in writing. A data controller may charge up to €6.35 for responding to such a request and must respond within 40 days. This will, of course, only apply if the recording has been retained and is available at the time the request is made.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/CCTV/1242.htm

234

doublej wrote: »

CCTV not covered by DPA, only computer, manual and paper files are.

Again, this is just completely wrong. What are you basing this on?

The DPAs do not restrict the definition of personal data to the categories you have listed. For God's sake, even the Data Protection Commissioner's website covers how to make an access request for CCTV under the DPAs.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/CCTV/1242.htm

Have you done any research on this at all?

doublej

My most humble apologies, I am in error and appreciate the efforts of other posters to keep the advice given to OP correct.
My original posting and my subsequent posting was based upon previous personal experience which was obviously pre DPA.
Thanks to all for correction