Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Photographing a Garda Station, Prison, etc.

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Defence Act 1954
    268.—(1) If any person, without lawful authority, makes or attempts to make any sketch, drawing, photograph, picture, painting, model or note of any fort, battery,field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post,magazine, munition factory, stores depot or any other Government property occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding F362[1,000] pounds or, at the discretion of the court, PT. VI S. 266 [No. 18.] Defence Act 1954 [1954.]207 imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, and all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, paintings, models and notes and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling found in his possession shall be forfeited and may be destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of as a Minister of State directs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Defence Act 1954
    268.—(1) If any person, without lawful authority, makes or attempts to make any sketch, drawing, photograph, picture, painting, model or note of any fort, battery,field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post,magazine, munition factory, stores depot or any other Government property occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding F362[1,000] pounds or, at the discretion of the court, PT. VI S. 266 [No. 18.] Defence Act 1954 [1954.]207 imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, and all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, paintings, models and notes and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling found in his possession shall be forfeited and may be destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of as a Minister of State directs.

    :D So it's not ok for someone to have created and to possess the image, but it's ok for someone to possess the same image if the MoS has sold it on to them. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    K.Flyer wrote: »
    :D So it's not ok for someone to have created and to possess the image, but it's ok for someone to possess the same image if the MoS has sold it on to them. :rolleyes:

    Yes. Read the second clause of the section. Many serving and retired servicemen have photographs which are taken in and show various parts of military installations. As long as they were made with lawful authority there is no problem. Likewise the press are often invited into military installations for various ceremonial events and are allowed to take photographs which are published.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Leaving aside that the act would now need to be read of the ECHR, would that mean that Google Earth is in breach of this?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Manach wrote: »
    Leaving aside that the act would now need to be read of the ECHR, would that mean that Google Earth is in breach of this?

    Yes. Unless they had permission.


  • Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,781 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Would that apply to complexes such as the Four Courts where there are Courts Martial in operation?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Would that apply to complexes such as the Four Courts where there are Courts Martial in operation?

    Courts Martial take place in Army barracks. In any event photography is not allowed within the Four Courts. The appeals are heard in the Four Courts but attendance by the military in a civil installation does not mean occupation by the military of that installation. It might apply to Leinster House where there is a military garrison.


  • Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,781 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Courts Martial take place in Army barracks. In any event photography is not allowed within the Four Courts. The appeals are heard in the Four Courts but attendance by the military in a civil installation does not mean occupation by the military of that installation. It might apply to Leinster House where there is a military garrison.

    Thank you but I am already aware that photography is not allowed within the Four Courts because there are signs that say that is the case.

    What I was getting at was whether the signs have any actual legal basis upon which a prosecution might be brought. It would be convenient if you could prosecute on the basis that the military are in occupation of part of the complex because other than that, you're relying on very little in order to purport to prohibit something that in 2015, would be considered a matter of course. #CourtsSelfie

    I know that filming court proceedings is not allowed because it is contempt of court. I do not know what prevents photographs being taken inside the Four Courts complex being taken other than those signs. Do they have any legal backing or is it just custom that records of transactions within the confines of the premises are not allowed to be taken or kept without authority to so do? If so, then to whom do I apply to gain authority to take records of these transactions and disperse them, if that is what I want to do?

    Signs on their own have little legal effect.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Thank you but I am already aware that photography is not allowed within the Four Courts because there are signs that say that is the case.

    What I was getting at was whether the signs have any actual legal basis upon which a prosecution might be brought. It would be convenient if you could prosecute on the basis that the military are in occupation of part of the complex because other than that, you're relying on very little in order to purport to prohibit something that in 2015, would be considered a matter of course. #CourtsSelfie

    I know that filming court proceedings is not allowed because it is contempt of court. I do not know what prevents photographs being taken inside the Four Courts complex being taken other than those signs. Do they have any legal backing or is it just custom that records of transactions within the confines of the premises are not allowed to be taken or kept without authority to so do? If so, then to whom do I apply to gain authority to take records of these transactions and disperse them, if that is what I want to do?

    Signs on their own have little legal effect.

    The only legal basis for action would be for contempt of court. People now take photographs of the lists outside the District Courtrooms so they have proof they were in court on that day.


  • Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,781 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The only legal basis for action would be for contempt of court. People now take photographs of the lists outside the District Courtrooms so they have proof they were in court on that day.

    I don't know what this is.

    I know about contempt of court and I already posted about it. It doesn't cover anything beyond what takes place inside an actual courtroom. It is not the basis upon which photography is disallowed within the Four Courts. I am trying to ascertain upon what basis photography is disallowed within the Four Courts.

    And now onto something completely different...

    A photograph of a court list doesn't prove attendance at that court at that time.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    I don't know what this is.

    I know about contempt of court and I already posted about it. It doesn't cover anything beyond what takes place inside an actual courtroom. It is not the basis upon which photography is disallowed within the Four Courts. I am trying to ascertain upon what basis photography is disallowed within the Four Courts.

    And now onto something completely different...

    A photograph of a court list doesn't prove attendance at that court at that time.
    Photography and recording equipment isn't allowed in the Four Court. Contempt of Court can occur within the precincts of a court and not just the court itslef.
    I am unaware of any specific legislative backing for the no photography rule but it appears to be part of a common law rule that persons who have business in court shouldn't have the risk of being photographed whilst in the precincts of the court. When criminal trials took place in the four courts there was anxiety to avoid having jurors photographed and also having the accused
    photographed.


  • Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,781 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Photography and recording equipment isn't allowed in the Four Court. Contempt of Court can occur within the precincts of a court and not just the court itslef.
    ...except on the occasions that it quite clearly allowed inside the premises. Any and every barrister called to the bar/benched/taking silk has photographs of themselves in full ceremonial garb in the carpark outside the tea rooms and it's perfectly allowable but on other occasions, it is not.

    How is that the case?
    I am unaware of any specific legislative backing for the no photography rule but it appears to be part of a common law rule that persons who have business in court shouldn't have the risk of being photographed whilst in the precincts of the court. When criminal trials took place in the four courts there was anxiety to avoid having jurors photographed and also having the accused
    photographed.

    I agree with the ratio here but it still begs the question as to the legal basis upon which the prohibition on photography within the Four Courts but outside the courtrooms exists.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    ...except on the occasions that it quite clearly allowed inside the premises. Any and every barrister called to the bar/benched/taking silk has photographs of themselves in full ceremonial garb in the carpark outside the tea rooms and it's perfectly allowable but on other occasions, it is not.

    How is that the case?


    They are not breaking any law.
    I agree with the ratio here but it still begs the question as to the legal basis upon which the prohibition on photography within the Four Courts but outside the courtrooms exists.
    The occupier of land is entitled to set out conditions for entry.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Photography and recording equipment isn't allowed in the Four Court.
    Hmm, you mean when the security guard said it was OK to keep my camera, he was flouting the rules?

    There is a difference between possession and use.

    [snigger]


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Victor wrote: »
    Hmm, you mean when the security guard said it was OK to keep my camera, he was flouting the rules?

    There is a difference between possession and use.

    [snigger]

    Yes, he was flouting the rules.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    So, all those people going through with their smart phones that have cameras?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Victor wrote: »
    So, all those people going through with their smart phones that have cameras?

    What about them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,647 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    I you contend "he was flouting the rules" in allowing one camera, was he not doing the same in allowing lots of cameras?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Victor wrote: »
    I you contend "he was flouting the rules" in allowing one camera, was he not doing the same in allowing lots of cameras?

    He was really flouting allowing lost of cameras.


Advertisement