Sketchy summons

HighOnFire · 16-01-2015 1:44pm #1

before getting to the summons itself, some background info:

last year I left my house and got stopped one minute after that by guards in an unmarked car (saw them at the junction looking for my house... apparently... ... their cars have small lights on front bumpers... so obvious.). blah blah cannabis blah blah questions... One of them searched me (he wasn't sober at all, probably popping some pills like skittles... valium maybe? who knows... I'm not into this rubbish). H found not even 0,1g of the happy herb. That guy kept calling me... let's say Albert (my name is... let's say Arnold). The other one checked my driving licence and went to the car with it. Then showed me search warrant for my house. We went there, they searched everything and found around 1g plus a scale with plastic bags. I gave them vague answers when they asked about the scale and bags. I didn't sign anything and they left. btw. that junkie cop still kept calling me Albert in the house. Complete waste of taxpayers money.

Now, few months after that a female guard showed up with summons, she was like: is Albert home? I am like: no, there is no Albert living at this address. I told her my name is Arnold. She left saying that they will have to reissue the summons.

2 months after that this junkie cop shows up with his flunkey. He had the summons and asked me why I lied to his colleague. I'm like what? He was high as a kite again. They basically gave me the thing and left telling me not to be a smart-ass and that I better get a solicitor.

Summons: Name is wrong, Date of birth is wrong (bottom right corner... it doesn't say it, but it is a date of birth), the offence took place is different on the summons.

I went to one solicitor here in Cork, not a good vibe from him. Straight away he asked me if I speak English (I'm a foreigner but there is nothing wrong with my english...). When I asked him why there isn't a signature on summons (there shoudl be one, it's an official document) he replied: there is no signature on summonses. When I asked why, he kept repeating the same thing therefore not answering my question. It was quite hard to deal with this person. He kept the summons and told me to go there and there will be some solicitor and told me to give him some money. Quite impersonal if you ask me. He didn't really tell me what to say at the court, the only options are: you will plead guilty, or not guilty.

Now what? I am thinking about going to the solicitor and get the summons back so I will represent myself (and save some money). Apparently I will be there as somebody who doesn't exist so I can theoretically say: yeah whatever. And nothing will happen to me.

I was also thinking about sending a (registered) letter to the court clerk saying that there is no signature on the summons, but that solves nothing, only postponing the whole matter.

What will the guard tell the judge at the hearing? Will he tell the whole story, or just some short version that they stopped me at location ABC and found weed with scale and bags? Because there is nothing in the summons about the house search.

---

at this point I am thinking about going there without solicitor (wearing a shirt and a tie of course), I will plead guilty, the judge will give me a fine and I will walk away without paying any fine, because I will be there as somebody who doesn't exist.

What do you think and what would you do?

Zambia · 16-01-2015 1:49pm

I think I would give up smoking weed.

Go to see a solicitor you like talking to. There is more than one.

HighOnFire · 16-01-2015 1:57pm

Zambia wrote: »

I think I would give up smoking weed.

Go to see a solicitor you like talking to. There is more than one.

That is exactly something I won't do, because I simply enjoy doing that. The only negative effect is the bad, outdated laws. Like they think they will change the society... those fools...

I am chasing some other soliciors now, but I was hoping to get some advice here from somebody who has some experience... anyway, thank you for your input.

HighOnFire · 16-01-2015 2:00pm

...and considering all the mistakes on the summons combined with the cop, who gets high every day on some antidepressants it seems to me that I am more responsible in my life that the system we live in.

nuac · 16-01-2015 2:14pm

My suggestions would be same as Zambia's.

Further if writing about this or speaking about it in court, please note that that you were dealing with Gardai, not " junkie cops", "flunkies".

Lose the attitude

HighOnFire · 16-01-2015 2:47pm

nuac wrote: »

My suggestions would be same as Zambia's.

Further if writing about this or speaking about it in court, please note that that you were dealing with Gardai, not " junkie cops", "flunkies".

Lose the attitude

I am looking for some comprehensive opinions on the matter, "go to speak to a solicitor" is something I know already. But I would like to know what the options would be in my case.

Ok, now let me make something straight: a person who barely knows what his name is, who barely knows who is he talking to, because he is under influence of who knows what doesn't really deserves much respect. Simple as that. If he is not able to do his job properly, he shouldn't be doing it at all. Considering that he works for the people who pay him, in this state is quite alarming. If I would turn up like this to work I would be sacked within few minutes.

schemingbohemia · 16-01-2015 3:10pm

Is your summons for possession or for supply?

Peregrinus · 16-01-2015 3:30pm

You haven't told us what you're charged with, so it's not going to be easy to offer "comprehensive opinions" or to comment on how this might play out. You seem fixated on the fact that the summons has no signature. While there may well be merit in challenging the summons (and this could lead to an acquittal) you are more likely to succeed in this if you not only take advice from someone who knows what he is talking about, but are willing to listen to it. I do not know why you are so convinced that an official document must have a signature, but this is a complete red herring. Your strategy of pleading guilty, being fined and then walking away without paying because you are there as a "somebody who does not exist" is amusing, but will not end well for you.

As for your comments about the guard and his demeanour, they may well be wholly justified (or they may not) but on the day you are in court they are completely irrelevant to the charge you face, and it would very much not be in your interests to display this attitude towards the guard. If you gets you before a court and presents evidence that show you to be guilty as charged, your comments that he can't do his job properly are going to look at best hollow, at worst like sour grapes. Stick to what matters, and forget about venting your feelings.

Pat Mustard · 16-01-2015 3:31pm

HighOnFire wrote: »

I am looking for some comprehensive opinions on the matter, "go to speak to a solicitor" is something I know already. But I would like to know what the options would be in my case.

You believe that there may be defects on the face of the summons. You ask for comprehensive opinions on your options.

The forum charter expressly forbids legal advice and requests for same so it is unlikely that you will get what you have requested on this forum.

The advice to go to another solicitor is the soundest advice that you are likely to get. You should take that advice rather than dismissing it.

Labarbapostiza · 16-01-2015 3:33pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Is your summons for possession or for supply?

1g, is a very small amount. I think for supply you need more than 28g.

But I'm not sure if having a weighing scales makes a difference.

HighOnFire · 16-01-2015 3:44pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Is your summons for possession or for supply?

It is for possesion. Sorry, I thought it's obvious. Can't see how somebody can supply from one gram.

The Mustard wrote: »

You believe that there may be defects on the face of the summons. You ask for comprehensive opinions on your options.

The forum charter expressly forbids legal advice and requests for same so it is unlikely that you will get what you have requested on this forum.

The advice to go to another solicitor is the soundest advice that you are likely to get. You should take that advice rather than dismissing it.

I don't believe, I know. I can see it clearly that there is at least two defects. Wrong name, wrong date of birth. The person on the summons doesn't exist. If I would be moving houses I wouldn't even bother, because they would keep calling to the house looking for somebody else.

Then I don't understand the purpose of this forum. There is no point to post here and answer to everything would be: "Go to see a solicitor"

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

1g, is a very small amount. I think for supply you need more than 28g.

But I'm not sure if having a weighing scales makes a difference.

They would have to prove sales and supply, but the summons is for possesion only.

Diabhalta · 16-01-2015 3:51pm

Solicitors do their jobs for money primarily and there is thousands of people like you out there (unfortunately), so I doubt that there is a solicitor who would really genuinely care about your case and tried to make it least "painful" for you and your wallet.

I have no advice, but I hope it will work out well for you.

jungleman · 16-01-2015 3:58pm

Why did you have a scales? Presumably because you weigh out cannabis or whatever it is you smoke and sell it on?

here's a tip - don't come over to Ireland and sell drugs. Enough taxpayers money is wasted on fighting people like you.

Pat Mustard · 16-01-2015 4:03pm

HighOnFire wrote: »

Then I don't understand the purpose of this forum. There is no point to post here and answer to everything would be: "Go to see a solicitor"

General legal issues can be discussed but specific legal advice cannot be asked for or given. Those are the rules and we are stuck with them. In any event, the forum charter is not for discussion here. That is a matter for Feedback.

Pat Mustard · 16-01-2015 4:06pm

jungleman wrote: »

here's a tip - don't come over to Ireland and sell drugs. Enough taxpayers money is wasted on fighting people like you.

MOD:

This is the legal discussion forum. If you are not here for legal discussion then you are posting off topic.

No more posting off topic.

Labarbapostiza · 16-01-2015 4:10pm

HighOnFire wrote: »

They would have to prove sales and supply, but the summons is for possesion only.

Your best bet is just to turn up at court, in your shirt and tie (you'll be surprised - they'll be so many tracksuits you'll think you're at the community games - you may in fact be the only person in a shirt and tie). Keep a straight face and look like you're repentant. You'll be processed in a flash. You might get a fine for a couple of hundred quid. Don't piss off the judge, or he'll bang the fine up over a grand. If the judge asks you any questions, do not be a smart arse.

Don't do this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWjLUrxzLuA

Mistakes on the summons, such as names, the judge can change at the bench. I'm not sure if he can change the charge from possession to supply, but don't push your luck.

Was a warrant used to search your house? That's a different case. The warrant has to have the correct date and address.

The whole thing is a pain in the arse, considering the Law Library is like the North Pole, if you know what I mean. But that's the law. Think of all the people you're keeping in jobs, by getting nabbed for a gram.

Tonto67 · 16-01-2015 4:16pm

Any errors on a summons can be rectified in court and they are not signed in Ireland. I had a reg mistake on one years back for not producing documents (had them,just forgot) the judge just instructs the clerk of the court to make the alterations. So you will get nowhere with that defence. You have been identified and notified by the guard in question so you must appear before the court mistakes or not. As far as the Gardas' competence is concerned, I think you will find he will bring his A-game to court.

You were caught with a small amount, don't try get out of it by nit picking on these details. That will not go down well. When you get in there you will see these cases are dealt with very quickly you will get very little time to start arguing minor points. Plead guilty and accept the fine. Oh and one more thing, deference is your friend in court, especially when your actually guilty. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and a bit of an attitude problem. If I were you I would leave that at the door of the court.

Good luck

FreudianSlippers · 16-01-2015 4:22pm

Judges frequently amend summons where it's clear that the person is the correct person to whom AGS are referring, but there are errors on the summons.

Pat Mustard · 16-01-2015 4:42pm

Tonto67 wrote: »

Plead guilty and accept the fine.

Mod:

This is legal advice. Please don't offer legal advice.

Whilst the judge has the power to amend the summons, there are certain incurable defects which cannot be rectified.

For instance, if the summons is brought in the incorrect district court area, then the district judge will have no jurisdiction to deal with it at all.

Nobody here has seen the summons and nobody has taken instructions from the OP. Therefore, nobody can advise the OP, even if there was no rule which forbade legal advice.

It was already pointed out that legal advice is not allowed. No more legal advice, please.

Zambia · 16-01-2015 10:26pm

HighOnFire wrote: »

That is exactly something I won't do, because I simply enjoy doing that. The only negative effect is the bad, outdated laws. Like they think they will change the society... those fools...

I am chasing some other soliciors now, but I was hoping to get some advice here from somebody who has some experience... anyway, thank you for your input.

Albert.

My piont is a solicitor will be able to advise you properly. They can advise you of really basic stuff like making online admissions.

If your going to spend your life smoking pot you may as well find a good one now.

HighOnFire · 17-01-2015 1:14am

but... but... my name ... ... is... actually ... Antonio ...

... not if I won't get caught... once in 17 years is a very good score in my opinion. They think they are doing the right thing... but they actually... don't ... 1977 isn't 2015. ... they keep doing the thing because the system tells them to do so. Poor souls.

source · 17-01-2015 9:10am

HighOnFire wrote: »

but... but... my name ... ... is... actually ... Antonio ...

... not if I won't get caught... once in 17 years is a very good score in my opinion. They think they are doing the right thing... but they actually... don't ... 1977 isn't 2015. ... they keep doing the thing because the system tells them to do so. Poor souls.

I think you have a bit of an attitude problem about this.

The facts are, you live in a country where cannabis is illegal. Your views on the safety of the drug are irrelevant.

You were caught with (a small amount) the drug, you went and sought legal advice and didn't like the correct advice the solicitor told you. So now it appears you're throwing your toys out of the pram.

A solicitor has viewed the summons and believes it is correct, yet you, with no knowledge it would appear, of how the Irish legal system works believe you know better.

Op I don't believe you're looking for advice, I think you're looking for somebody to tell you what you want to hear. Anyone who does that week be giving you bad advice. Listen to what the people in this thread have said. Pretty much every one of us has knowledge of the Irish criminal Justice system.

My advice: get a solicitor and lose the I'm right and everyone else is wrong attitude. It won't get you very far in front of a judge.

Labarbapostiza · 17-01-2015 6:52pm

source wrote: »

I think you have a bit of an attitude problem about this.

The facts are, you live in a country where cannabis is illegal.

I think you have a bit of an attitude problem.

Once upon a time in the emerald isle, it was illegal to be in possession or attempting to sell a piece of rubber you could shove over your willy.

And people were prosecuted, and too far in the distance past either.

Why was it illegal to put a piece of rubber over your willy in Ireland. Because some very self entitled and sanctimonious kill joys didn't like the idea. Some genuinely feared that rubbers on willies would be the end of their way of life.

The facts were, you lived in a country where putting a piece of rubber over your willie was illegal.........The law is the law.

The Journal carried out a poll in 2013, on support for the legalisation of marijuana. The results were 75% for the legalisation, only 6% don't nos and then a thunderous 19% against. If the overwhelming majority of population see nothing immoral in the possession and use of cannabis, why is it still illegal? Surely Ireland is a democracy, and not held hostage to the whims of a minority.

Well, Ireland isn't a democracy, obviously. And that 19% against the legalisation of cannabis are the self same people who were against the legalisation of pieces of rubber for your willy. The self appointed moral guardians.

Cannabis should not be illegal, and fining and imprisoning people for possessing cannabis is immoral. That is the majority consensus. Who exactly has the attitude problem?

Pat Mustard · 17-01-2015 6:59pm

Mod:

This is not a discussion on the merits of legalization of drugs.

If you want to discuss that, open a new thread/

Back on topic now please.

J Mysterio · 17-01-2015 7:28pm

A point well made though, some smug sanctimonious types in here.

source · 17-01-2015 7:54pm

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I think you have a bit of an attitude problem.

Once upon a time in the emerald isle, it was illegal to be in possession or attempting to sell a piece of rubber you could shove over your willy.

And people were prosecuted, and too far in the distance past either.

Why was it illegal to put a piece of rubber over your willy in Ireland. Because some very self entitled and sanctimonious kill joys didn't like the idea. Some genuinely feared that rubbers on willies would be the end of their way of life.

The facts were, you lived in a country where putting a piece of rubber over your willie was illegal.........The law is the law.

The Journal carried out a poll in 2013, on support for the legalisation of marijuana. The results were 75% for the legalisation, only 6% don't nos and then a thunderous 19% against. If the overwhelming majority of population see nothing immoral in the possession and use of cannabis, why is it still illegal? Surely Ireland is a democracy, and not held hostage to the whims of a minority.

Well, Ireland isn't a democracy, obviously. And that 19% against the legalisation of cannabis are the self same people who were against the legalisation of pieces of rubber for your willy. The self appointed moral guardians.

Cannabis should not be illegal, and fining and imprisoning people for possessing cannabis is immoral. That is the majority consensus. Who exactly has the attitude problem?

My point is not that laws shouldn't change, my point is that while the law is in effect the population of this country is expected to follow it.

Don't like it, campaign to have it changed however if you choose to flaunt the law in the mean time, you then need to learn to accept your punishment for knowingly breaking the law.

The op has knowingly broken the law because he doesn't agree with it. The op also doesn't agree with the responses he's been given by a multitude of people with legal experience. The op is looking for a yes man to tell him what he wants.

Nobody here is going to do that, he's been given sound advice so far on this forum, advice which he's still not happy with because it doesn't align with the op's world view. Nothing we can do about that and I for one am not going to sugar coat it for him.

Edit: also your analogy is flawed as condoms help protect against the transmission of diseases, so there was a very serious public health element to their legalisation.

17-01-2015 11:47pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

A point well made though, some smug sanctimonious types in here.

The word you're looking for is "lawyer".

And they also happen to be right

J Mysterio · 17-01-2015 11:53pm

No, I specifically chose the words I wanted. Anyway, I think you mean to say 'solicitor'.

My comment was aimed at the snide comments relating to this man's chosen vice rather than any of the advice given.

Comments relating to him being foreign were also distasteful.

Pat Mustard · 18-01-2015 4:59pm

Mod:

Next off topic post gets a card. Cop on J Mysterio.

J Mysterio · 18-01-2015 5:31pm

The Mustard wrote: »

Cop on J Mysterio.

Nice one.

Peregrinus · 19-01-2015 1:50am

HighOnFire wrote: »

but... but... my name ... ... is... actually ... Antonio ...

This is not the slam-dunk you seem to think. The summons can be amended to show your correct name. It's no big deal. You seem reluctant to hear this, but it is true, and when it comes to defending yourself on a criminal charge a health dose of accepting reality is beneficial. Whereas wishful thinking is very disadvantageous. You would like the mistake in your name to torpedo the prosecution, but it won't. Deal with it.

HighOnFire wrote: »

... not if I won't get caught... once in 17 years is a very good score in my opinion.

But now that you have been caught once, your chances of being caught again are dramatically increased (esp. since they found the scales). The next 17 years will not be like the last.

HighOnFire wrote: »

They think they are doing the right thing... but they actually... don't ...

Maybe, but so what? The issue here is not how the law ought to treat cannabis possession/use/supply, it's how you are going to fare in court, given how the law does in fact treat it.

Going back to the facts, you say that you have been charged with possession, but there are actually two distinct possession offences - possession of a controlled drug under Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 s. 3, and possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying to to another, under Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 s. 15. I assume you have been charged with simple possession only, the s. 3 offence. The fact that you only had a small amount wouldn't stop you being charged with possession for supply if other factors pointed to you supplying the drug, and from that point of view the scales was not helpful to you. You have perhaps been fortunate to be charged only with the lesser offence.

If it's the lesser offence, and this is your first offence, max. penalty in the District court is a fine of 1000 euro, but unless you make a gobsh!te of yourself on the day you will probably get much less (if convicted at all). But be aware that you are on the guards' radar, and on account of the scales they probably suspect you of supplying, in which case you can expect to see them again before too long. Best advice if you are supplying (and I'm not asking you whether you are or not) is to stop, immediately, permanently, and in any event get rid of the scales, unless you genuinely need it for a wholly innocent purpose and have cast-iron proof for that. If you're charged with and convicted of the possession-for-supply offence, you're looking at a much heavier fine, plus possibly prison.

Zambia · 19-01-2015 11:31am

The real question the OP is asking is the following

If his name is Antonio Smith with a Birth date of 01/01/1980.

The Summons is in the name of Albert Smith 02/01/1980

He attends court, case of Albert Smith is called and he enters the court and pleads guilty.

Judge fines him eur250 with conviction. Gives him three weeks to pay.

He leaves court.

The judgement was against Albert Smith 02/01/1980, so if the judgement is against that name how is the OP affected?

In essence at what point would the mistake be caught.

Peregrinus · 19-01-2015 11:48am

Well, let's assume the issue doesn't arise at the trial - e.g. the judge doesn't ask the OP "Are you Albert Smith?"

Presumably, after the trial, events unfold as follows. The OP takes no steps to pay the fine. Enforcement ensues, and at some point - e.g. when the guards arrive to arrest him for breach of an order to pay - he says "I am not Albert Smith".

When the matter goes back to court again, the OP has to explain why he entered a plea at the earlier trial if he believed that, in fact, he was not the intended defendant. On the face of it, turning up at someone else's trial and impersonating the defendant is a contempt of court, and a fairly serious one. Maybe the OP gets pinged for contempt; maybe the judge just rectifies the order to pay and substitutes the OP's correct name and d/o/b. There isn't any doubt that the OP did attend the trial as the defendant and did plead guilty, so rectifying the record and the order is no big deal.

The OP might do better not to turn up at all and, when the arrive to arrest him, say that he is not the person charged and he assumed that papers had been served on him by mistake, as a result of a confusion between him and a real Albert Smith. The long term upshot is the same; papers are reissued with the correct details and the OP gets tried and (possibly) convicted and fined. But he saves the expsense of a day off work to attend the first trial, and the risk of being pinged for contempt.

GerardKeating · 19-01-2015 11:49am

Zambia wrote: »

The real question the OP is asking is the following

If his name is Antonio Smith with a Birth date of 01/01/1980.

The Summons is in the name of Albert Smith 02/01/1980

He attends court, case of Albert Smith is called and he enters the court and pleads guilty.

Judge fines him eur250 with conviction. Gives him three weeks to pay.

He leaves court.

The judgement was against Albert Smith 02/01/1980, so if the judgement is against that name how is the OP affected?

In essence at what point would the mistake be caught.

Maybe the Judge might find him in Contempt of Court, for using a false name, or perjury ?

Peregrinus · 19-01-2015 11:56am

GerardKeating wrote: »

Maybe the Judge might find him in Contempt of Court, for using a false name, or perjury ?

Not perjury, unless he gives evidence on oath, which he'd be well advised not to do, and which in any case is unlikely to arise if he is pleading guilty. But when he is brought back to court in an attempt to enforce, he's either going to have to say that he thought he was not the correct defendant, in which case he's looking at contempt for acting as the defendant and putting in a plea, or that he thought he was, in which case there is no injustice in rectifing the order to include his proper name.

Little CuChulainn · 19-01-2015 1:24pm

Being convicted under an alias is not a get out of jail free card. The summons can be amended in court. I get the feeling this is one of those situations where you use a different name in general, maybe your middle name, and then use the real name when it suits. In any case, the Garda will be able to identify you as the correct defendant. At most you may succeed in delaying things. As to the charge, there is no set amount required for a charge of possession with intent. While a certain quantity might be considered high enough to imply sale or supply, a small amount can still be sufficient if it is found with items such as a scale and bags.

In short, get a solicitor and keep your world view to yourself. Nobody in the court will care.

HighOnFire · 19-01-2015 1:59pm

OP here.

I may also go there as somebody else (the person on summons), plead guilty, pay the fine. And from that moment, it won't show up in any records, because I was there as somebody else. What I mean is, that if I will get a random job somewehre and they will send a request to Garda vetting unit to check if I have any previous convictions/records then I will be ok, because there will be nothing in my real name. Problem solved basically and all it will cost is few hundred yoyos.

hullaballoo · 19-01-2015 3:26pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Being convicted under an alias is not a get out of jail free card. The summons can be amended in court. I get the feeling this is one of those situations where you use a different name in general, maybe your middle name, and then use the real name when it suits. In any case, the Garda will be able to identify you as the correct defendant. At most you may succeed in delaying things. As to the charge, there is no set amount required for a charge of possession with intent. While a certain quantity might be considered high enough to imply sale or supply, a small amount can still be sufficient if it is found with items such as a scale and bags.

In short, get a solicitor and keep your world view to yourself. Nobody in the court will care.

HighOnFire wrote: »

OP here.

I may also go there as somebody else (the person on summons), plead guilty, pay the fine. And from that moment, it won't show up in any records, because I was there as somebody else. What I mean is, that if I will get a random job somewehre and they will send a request to Garda vetting unit to check if I have any previous convictions/records then I will be ok, because there will be nothing in my real name. Problem solved basically and all it will cost is few hundred yoyos.

.

/thread