Photographing a Garda Station, Prison, etc.

Victor

What acts cover this. I though it was the offences Against the States Acts, but I couldn't find anything. However, the acts are much amended.

There is this, that I found: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/32/section/10/enacted/en/html

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Little CuChulainn

Closest I can find is this

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/39/section/8/enacted/en/html#sec8

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.

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:

4ensic15

K.Flyer wrote: »

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.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

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?

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.

hullaballoo

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

4ensic15

hullaballoo wrote: »

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.

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.

4ensic15

hullaballoo wrote: »

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.

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.

4ensic15

hullaballoo wrote: »

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.

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.

4ensic15

hullaballoo wrote: »

...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.

hullaballoo wrote: »

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.

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]

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.

Victor

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

4ensic15

Victor wrote: »

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

What about them?

Victor

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

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.