Preventing or interrupting the free passage of a vehicle

lazybones32

Was reading in a newspaper how a man was charged with "preventing or interrupting the free passage of a vehicle".
My query relates to people who act as stewards for road-races, local cycling events, etc; who stop traffic to allow the race right-of-way. What authority do they actually have to do so? I thought it was only a Garda who has this authority.

Paulw

I am open to correction, but I believe that a local authority, in conjunction with the Gardai, has the power to close a road. They can close the road and then allow stewards to man the junctions. There wouldn't be enough Gardai to man each junction.

afatbollix

Yes once the council close a road the ownership of the road passes to who has closed it. In rallying & Motorbike road racing this would be the club running the event.


Once it is closed it is up to the club how they do things like moving people and local cars.


By the sound of things the person you talk about in the newspaper must of been a protester?

Carawaystick

If the roads are not closed, then marshals can only ask motorists to stop.

cerastes

Ive seen this at some burials or at least I think they were, while people will say you should observe some form of propriety, a couple of instances Ive seen in the last year were where there was no apparant warning or obvious proof that it had been done officially, where a section of road was taken over and it appeared as if "stewards" had just been appointed to take charge and impose on peoples good nature, stopping traffic for no good reason and imposing authority based on a meaningless dayglow bib.

lazybones32

afatbollix wrote: »

Yes once the council close a road the ownership of the road passes to who has closed it. In rallying & Motorbike road racing this would be the club running the event.


Once it is closed it is up to the club how they do things like moving people and local cars.


By the sound of things the person you talk about in the newspaper must of been a protester?

No, the roads have not been closed but the stewards, wearing high-viz bibs, direct traffic as they see fit. There is no signage indicating that a race is taking place.

No, the person from the newspaper walked out of his house and noticed someone in a car taking photographs of him, his house and him getting into and driving his car. He approached the photographer to see who they were and why they were taking photo's but got no response. He parked in front of the photographers car and used 'abusive language'.
Turns out the photographer was working for Social Welfare and had got the wrong house or was photographing the wrong person as the man wasn't the intended 'target', nor any member of his family.
And still the Gardai persisted in prosecuting the charge of preventing free passage and using abusive language. The Judge ordered 300 or 600 to be donated in order to avoid a conviction.

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

No, the roads have not been closed but the stewards, wearing high-viz bibs, direct traffic as they see fit. There is no signage indicating that a race is taking place.

No, the person from the newspaper walked out of his house and noticed someone in a car taking photographs of him, his house and him getting into and driving his car. He approached the photographer to see who they were and why they were taking photo's but got no response. He parked in front of the photographers car and used 'abusive language'.
Turns out the photographer was working for Social Welfare and had got the wrong house or was photographing the wrong person as the man wasn't the intended 'target', nor any member of his family.
And still the Gardai persisted in prosecuting the charge of preventing free passage and using abusive language. The Judge ordered 300 or 600 to be donated in order to avoid a conviction.

This is the case in question. "Judge David McHugh accepted there was a misunderstanding element about the situation and said if pays €300 to Blanchardstown Hospice he will apply the Probation Act." http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/get-out-of-the-fking-car-taxi-driver-blocked-welfare-inspectors-car-31316987.html

lazybones32

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the case in question. "Judge David McHugh accepted there was a misunderstanding element about the situation and said if pays €300 to Blanchardstown Hospice he will apply the Probation Act." http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/get-out-of-the-fking-car-taxi-driver-blocked-welfare-inspectors-car-31316987.html

Yes, Maryanne84, it is.

Can you contribute on the legal aspect of stewards preventing and interrupting the free passage of vehicles on open roads?

athtrasna

Don't the rules of the road say you give way to the emergency eervices, people in charge of animals and school traffic wardens? I don't remember anything about any other groups or officials on a public road? Of course common sense applies...or should do anyway.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

athtrasna wrote: »

Don't the rules of the road say you give way to the emergency eervices, people in charge of animals and school traffic wardens? I don't remember anything about any other groups or officials on a public road? Of course common sense applies...or should do anyway.

First we start with the section, I have not seen if it has been amended,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0009.html

9.—Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

the important bit is in bold.

Manach

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is the case in question. "Judge David McHugh accepted there was a misunderstanding element about the situation and said if pays €300 to Blanchardstown Hospice he will apply the Probation Act." http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/get-out-of-the-fking-car-taxi-driver-blocked-welfare-inspectors-car-31316987.html

Slightly OT to the OP's question but from the article that the government employee did not identify herself or seemly produce identification. Given in normal circumstances there are certain implicit privacy rights that are present was their a justification of the defendant's action in preventing such a breech?

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yes, Maryanne84, it is.

Can you contribute on the legal aspect of stewards preventing and interrupting the free passage of vehicles on open roads?

I have been involved in sponsored walks and cycles for Primary and Secondary Schools. Stewards were appointed from responsible adults and were stationed along the route to warn/direct other traffic. There was always a garda presence and the roads weren't closed. Permission was granted by local Garda Superintendant. In those cases, I understood that they had the authority of the Gardai to direct other traffic in a way they saw fit in order to ensure the safety of all, participants and public alike. I would imagine that the Garda permit would be available for inspection on the day.

The court case mentioned was about the reaction of a private individual to what he saw as a stranger taking photographs for purposes that may have been used for unsavoury or criminal purposes.

Little CuChulainn

There's two different matters here. The first is whether you have to obey the steward, the second is whether they are committing an offence. The answer to both is no. Just because they do not have authority to direct traffic, does not mean they do not have a reasonable excuse for attempting to do so.

As to the case brought up, it's really irrelevant if a guy was taking pictures of his house, that doesn't excuse the home-owners actions in breaking the law.

GerardKeating

lazybones32 wrote: »

And still the Gardai persisted in prosecuting the charge of preventing free passage and using abusive language. The Judge ordered 300 or 600 to be donated in order to avoid a conviction.

I kind of assumed that this was because he was "known" to them.

lazybones32

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As to the case brought up, it's really irrelevant if a guy was taking pictures of his house, that doesn't excuse the home-owners actions in breaking the law.

The Court case only inspired my question because my house is on a popular route for running and cycling races. And there is a multi-million euro athletics track about 0.7 miles away from my house...

conorh91

Given that the upper limit of the fine is €400, a fine of €300 is more severe than I'd have expected.

I'm sure it's quite natural to be aggravated when a non-uniformed stranger starts photographing you outside your home, and following your car, especially when you are doing an honest day's work.

Obviously the taxi driver's response was blameworthy, but given the context, and apparently the lack of care taken by the Inspector, I don't believe it's near the upper limit of willful obstruction….

Victor

The wording "Preventing or interrupting the free passage of a vehicle" isn't familiar. What act applies?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There's two different matters here. The first is whether you have to obey the steward, the second is whether they are committing an offence. The answer to both is no. Just because they do not have authority to direct traffic, does not mean they do not have a reasonable excuse for attempting to do so.

Eh, no. There are very few legitimate reasons to obstruct the public road. People have been done for obstructing roads by overly aggressive begging.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

Prohibitions on Parking
36. (1) Save as otherwise provided for in these Regulations and subject to article 5, a vehicle shall not be parked on a public road at a location, in a manner or for a purpose referred to in this article.

(2) A vehicle shall not be parked—

( k ) in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic;

It might be argued that a parked vehicle isn't traffic.

conorh91

Victor wrote: »

The wording "Preventing or interrupting the free passage of a vehicle" isn't familiar. What act applies?

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994

9.—Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [€400].

Prosecutions under the following acts may also be available

s.10 Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976

s.15 Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Act, 1997

False imprisonment is also a common law offence.

cerastes

GerardKeating wrote: »

I kind of assumed that this was because he was "known" to them.

That is a huge assumption to make, I never interpreted that from the article and why I think people leap to defamatory opinions without cause.
I don't know how he impeded her car, but I'd be concerned if I came across the same situation.

Little CuChulainn

Victor wrote: »

Eh, no. There are very few legitimate reasons to obstruct the public road. People have been done for obstructing roads by overly aggressive begging.

Eh, well I'd imagine diverting traffic around a large group of people would be considered a pretty good reason to be on the road.

Victor

conorh91 wrote: »

False imprisonment is also a common law offence.

And watching and besetting.

Shep_Dog

Victor wrote: »

It might be argued that a parked vehicle isn't traffic.

It might also be argued that any vehicle parked on a road, interferes in the normal flow of traffic.

Carawaystick

conorh91 wrote: »

s.15 Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Act, 1997

False imprisonment is also a common law offence.

Does the statute law offense not get rid of the common law offense?

conorh91

Carawaystick wrote: »

Does the statute law offense not get rid of the common law offense?

Not necessarily by default, but I just checked the Act and you are indeed correct because s.28(1)(d) explicitly abolishes the common law offence.

barman linen

Slightly different angle.....how much power do the guys in the hi viz jackets at the drop off zone at Dublin Airport have to direct you to leave the zone ?

Not the Airport police - just the guys in black clothing with hi viz?

Marcusm

Shep_Dog wrote: »

It might also be argued that any vehicle parked on a road, interferes in the normal flow of traffic.

But there is lawful authority for parking!

Victor

barman linen wrote: »

Slightly different angle.....how much power do the guys in the hi viz jackets at the drop off zone at Dublin Airport have to direct you to leave the zone ?

Not the Airport police - just the guys in black clothing with hi viz?

As staff members, presumably they have full authority to get you to leave. If you don't, expect to be towed / fined / arrested.

barman linen

Victor wrote: »

As staff members, presumably they have full authority to get you to leave. If you don't, expect to be towed / fined / arrested.

Staff members have the power to direct traffic..?...why would you be arrested ?

hullaballoo

It doesn't really matter whether the staff have the "power" to direct traffic or tell you to move off. If they tell you to do it and you don't, the airport police will be there within a minute in most cases. Airport police have got a fairly incredible range of powers but they're cute enough to know not to just go straight in with arrest and detain. They will just tow your car away whether you're in it or not.

Anyway, you shouldn't be in the drop-off zone in the airport long enough for there to be a discussion about whether you're leaving or not.