Garda acquitted of theft

joe swanson

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/garda-acquitted-of-assault-and-theft-over-taxi-fare-dispute-1.2039907

Thought I'd post this here and get some opinions. Seems to me he was prosecuted for using common sense.

Don't think I'd fancy being a Garda if this is what is happening.

Victor

I'd love to know how taxi meter got to €6.25 from the Savoy to Parnell Square.

listermint

Drunk guy doesnt want to pay fare assumes he is in the right.

Drunk guy blames everyone but himself.


END CASE.

Paulzx

Victor wrote: »

I'd love to know how taxi meter got to €6.25 from the Savoy to Parnell Square.

I'd say the meter was still running while the Guard was sorting it out. The row probably went on for 5 or 10 mins looking at the info in The Times. It's still nonsense that this makes it all the way to a courtroom to be thrown out straight away by a judge.

Greenmachine

Certainly doesn't sound like he was brought to stephens green, like the passenger had claimed.€
Initial tariff of €4.45,

knucklehead6

what the hell was the DPP thinking???

Little CuChulainn

knucklehead6 wrote: »

what the hell was the DPP thinking???

I'm pretty sure they just use a magic eight ball in there.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

I'd love to know how taxi meter got to €6.25 from the Savoy to Parnell Square.

Initial fare and the 1k travelled. That makes it sound like he may have gone around D'olier st and back up. Could also have been traffic from the collision.

markpb

knucklehead6 wrote: »

what the hell was the DPP thinking???

The garda had been prosecuted by the DPP following an investigation by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

Sounds like they were following orders from GSOC. Very odd case.

Little CuChulainn

markpb wrote: »

Sounds like they were following orders from GSOC. Very odd case.

GSOC merely put the file together. The DPP must decide whether there is a case to answer.

kerry4sam

joe swanson wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/garda-acquitted-of-assault-and-theft-over-taxi-fare-dispute-1.2039907

Thought I'd post this here and get some opinions. Seems to me he was prosecuted for using common sense.

Don't think I'd fancy being a Garda if this is what is happening.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

what the hell was the DPP thinking???

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they just use a magic eight ball in there.

How can you not see where the DPP was coming from, seriously? Okay, monies needed to be paid; but procedures are in place and I doubt whilst in Templemore that Guard was taught the method of taking someone elses wallet; taking monies out of anothers wallet without permission and giving it to someone else.

I'd say that's similar to what the DPP was thinking as opposed to a flippant comment on using a Magic-8 ball to make decisions.

He didn't join the force lastweek so with all his experience to date, that's how his judgement thought it to deal with that situation infront of him. It is good though that the Guard was exonerated in this instance, but it was also good the Guard was made take responsibility for his actions.

A good sign in my eyes,
kerry4sam

Little CuChulainn

kerry4sam wrote: »

How can you not see where the DPP was coming from, seriously? Okay, monies needed to be paid; but procedures are in place and I doubt whilst in Templemore that Guard was taught the method of taking someone elses wallet; taking monies out of anothers wallet without permission and giving it to someone else.

I'd say that's similar to what the DPP was thinking as opposed to a flippant comment on using a Magic-8 ball to make decisions.

He didn't join the force lastweek so with all his experience to date, that's how his judgement thought it to deal with that situation infront of him. It is good though that the Guard was exonerated in this instance, but it was also good the Guard was made take responsibility for his actions.

A good sign in my eyes,
kerry4sam

I appreciate that you have an axe to grind with AGS so feel the need to support any campaign against them but as far as I am aware you were also a reserve so you have basic legal training. So you should know that a basic legal ingredient for crimes of this type is deception or dishonesty, something which is completely absent in this scenario in any way. To proceed with a prosecution when a vital ingredient of a crime is missing is either incompetent or political. A bad sign in my eyes.

unattendedbag

I'm in two minds, if the situation was the same but with a 1km journey and the amount involved is €100 then I wouldn't back the guard at all but it is evident from reading the reports in the media from the court case that the complainant was an unreliable witness and the Garda definitely did the taxi man a big favour.

Terrontress

unattendedbag wrote: »

I'm in two minds, if the situation was the same but with a 1km journey and the amount involved is €100 then I wouldn't back the guard at all but it is evident from reading the reports in the media from the court case that the complainant was an unreliable witness and the Garda definitely did the taxi man a big favour.

A favour to help him square up with the passenger, but I'd say after the Garda left it, the taxi driver was paid, the passenger had had his money's worth and that should have been that.

bravestar

You can be sure this is the last time a Garda applies common sense to resolve a situation. They want robot police who do everything by the book, that's what they will get with this kind of carry on.

Zambia

bravestar wrote: »

You can be sure this is the last time a Garda applies common sense to resolve a situation. They want robot police who do everything by the book, that's what they will get with this kind of carry on.

I agree.

The fact this made it passed any checks and balances a police body had is ridiculous.

The points of proof are just not there not even close.

waulie_palnuts

What in the name of Sweet Divine Christ was the DPP thinking? Was this at all in the Public Interest?

As much as the case was ****e, the Guard was caused unnecessary stress and anguish for using his common sense.

The Omnibusman should have written that off - File under toilet paper.

Shower of ****e.

Truckermal

waulie_palnuts wrote: »

What in the name of Sweet Divine Christ was the DPP thinking? Was this at all in the Public Interest?

As much as the case was ****e, the Guard was caused unnecessary stress and anguish for using his common sense.

The Omnibusman should have written that off - File under toilet paper.

Shower of ****e.

It's actually beyond comprehension, I actually had the opportunity to join the force years ago but delighted now I changed my mind well my parents did. It's a sad day for any cop when the DPP starts this sh1t if the job was not bad enough allready. .:rolleyes:

waulie_palnuts

Truckermal wrote: »

It's actually beyond comprehension, I actually had the opportunity to join the force years ago but delighted now I changed my mind well my parents did. It's a sad day for any cop when the DPP starts this sh1t if the job was not bad enough allready. .:rolleyes:

I do not miss the inevitable bull plop complaints from the esteemed service users. Don't know what it's like in the Guards but the UK Force I served in were quite quick to hurl you too the wolves once a complaint was received. The stress of a complaint, particularly ones of a spurious nature is something I have yet to re-experience in the private sector - thank god I got offered the new job when I did.

Santa Cruz

bravestar wrote: »

You can be sure this is the last time a Garda applies common sense to resolve a situation. They want robot police who do everything by the book, that's what they will get with this kind of carry on.

Exactly. The Garda could have arrested the fare evader, charged under the PSV regulations, knocked a few hours overtime out of the court case and leave the scumbag with a conviction.

Zambia

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Exactly. The Garda could have arrested the fare evader, charged under the PSV regulations, knocked a few hours overtime out of the court case and leave the scumbag with a conviction.

Conviction for. What exactly what law oand section

Little CuChulainn

Zambia wrote: »

Conviction for. What exactly what law oand section

there is an offence under the psv regulations. But I'd say the more common offence of making off without payment would be legitimate too.

Zambia

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

there is an offence under the psv regulations. But I'd say the more common offence of making off without payment would be legitimate too.

In fairness do those acts require men's Rea because I don't see an offence if he has approached a garda with the issue.

Zambia

Zambia wrote: »

In fairness do those acts require men's Rea because I don't see an offence if he has approached a garda with the issue.

Once the meter runs you have to pay the fair. The driver may well have driven around in circles but that is an issue for the regulator. Pay the fare and make complaint.

waulie_palnuts

Whole thing reeks of a Christmas Hamper grab.

Zambia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Once the meter runs you have to pay the fair. The driver may well have driven around in circles but that is an issue for the regulator. Pay the fare and make complaint.

Ok under what act and section would that charge fall under?

I can't really debate the point unless I know the charge?

Little CuChulainn

I think the most recent legislation is Section 29 of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013. Although I notice it does not seem to give the power to demand name and address of the passenger, just to remove them and fine them.

Zambia

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think the most recent legislation is Section 29 of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013. Although I notice it does not seem to give the power to demand name and address of the passenger, just to remove them and fine them.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0037/sec0029.html

I don't see something specifying the offence under subsection 2 is complete regardless of men's rea. In fact it omits subsection 2 from the last paragraph

wmpdd3

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Exactly. The Garda could have arrested the fare evader, charged under the PSV regulations, knocked a few hours overtime out of the court case and leave the scumbag with a conviction.

Exactly, this guy had his good name sullied for saving the state valuable time. He was already on a job, he would have had to leave that to deal with this idiot.

You can be sure this 'victim' wouldn't try this at home.

Pity he can't be made pay costs.

Great argument for garda mounted cameras.

Section 8 theft and fraud offences act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0008.html#sec8

And nearly all are drunk muppets that you deal with. The majority can be resolved without arrest but some people just can't exercise some cop on.

Little CuChulainn

Zambia wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0037/sec0029.html

I don't see something specifying the offence under subsection 2 is complete regardless of men's rea. In fact it omits subsection 2 from the last paragraph

You're right, that's not the one. I'll keep looking.

Zambia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Section 8 theft and fraud offences act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0008.html#sec8

And nearly all are drunk muppets that you deal with. The majority can be resolved without arrest but some people just can't exercise some cop on.

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot is guilty of an offence.

I reckon the above is something the garda could use to arrest him. the garda must know he would never prove the crucial element of dishonesty.

The passenger is a twat but he is not a thief. The Garda was faced with a **** sandwhich he was never keeping everyone happy.

Zambia

Zambia wrote: »

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot is guilty of an offence.

I reckon the above is something the garda could use to arrest him. the garda must know he would never prove the crucial element of dishonesty.

The passenger is a twat but he is not a thief. The Garda was faced with a **** sandwhich he was never keeping everyone happy.

That one is more applicable to run offs.

Zambia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That one is more applicable to run offs.

I agree if the passenger took off, no issue in a charge there

braddun

6.25 is only the price of a pint

pah

braddun wrote: »

6.25 is only the price of a pint

Yikes! I'd hope to see a few coppers from a tenner for a couple of pints. Where are you drinking?

hierro

My preference is

Payment of fares, etc.
56. A person shall not refuse or omit to pay to the owner, driver or conductor of a public service vehicle any sum which is payable by such person to such owner, driver or conductor for the hire of the vehicle or the fare for his carriage in the vehicle.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0191.html#zzsi191y1963

Fare Evasion - Section 8 theft and Fraud - 5% of the problem
Fare Opposition/dispute - Pay fare and take complaint to regulator or fail/refuse to pay see above, 95% of problem.

A bit simplistic. Since the complaint above, I never directly get involved in settling a fare.

This is was another example of the carte blanche attitude to anything GSOC throw in front of the DPP.

Taxi regulation act 2013. Can't find if that 56 has been revoked.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0037/sec0029.html#sec29

Xios

I'm with the Garda on this one. He likely had much more important issues to be concerned about in that area, and then he gets caught up in this silly incident with a drunk. He made a judgement call to get rid of the issue and go on to focus his attention on more important issues, like public safety.

There were other channels for this guy to complain through and wasting Gardai time on the beat is just silly. If i got short changed a euro or two in a pub, ya think a Garda is gonna give a ****e about that if i ran up to them winging? I don't think it's their role, or is it?

Victor

Xios wrote: »

I'm with the Garda on this one. He likely had much more important issues to be concerned about in that area, and then he gets caught up in this silly incident with a drunk. He made a judgement call to get rid of the issue and go on to focus his attention on more important issues, like public safety.

Then why did he arrest the passenger and detract from those important issues?

mcgarrett

Victor wrote: »

Then why did he arrest the passenger and detract from those important issues?

Because having tried to resolve the issue sensibly he was then put in a position where he had to arrest.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

Then why did he arrest the passenger and detract from those important issues?

You mean why did he not ignore the offence in front of him?