Picking the lock of a wheel clamp

Pro Hoc Vice

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/18/emmabrockes

Pat Mustard

See section 101B(7)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as inserted by section 9 of Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act 1987:

A person who, without being authorised to do so under this section, removes or attempts to remove from a vehicle an immobilisation device fixed to it under this section, shall be guilty of an offence.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Riesen_Meal

Pat Mustard wrote: »

See section 101B(7)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as inserted by section 9 of Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act 1987:

It's an odd one this, I was clamped a while ago in Dublin, was having a terrible day of things and it was the icing on the cake getting clamped!

I was on the phone to my workmate telling him what had happened and the type of rotten day in work I had, when low and behold a lad appeared from a house nearby, told me he heard me on the phone, and the rotten day I had and offered to remove the clamp!

Turns out the chap was a locksmith on his day off - he proceeded to tell me he heard me on the phone to my friend and normally he wouldn't take action for the other cars on his street but decided to help me.

Then he explained that it was illegal for him to actually take the clamp off it himself, I would have to do it, fair enough I said but another lad who appeared watching us as the lock removal was going on, starting taking it off right in front of me...

Anyway, long story short, I was talking to a clamper a few weeks later and explained to him what happened, and would I hear anything of it - he told me I won't hear anything about it, but if I ever get caught illegal parking even for a ticket that the car will be straight up impounded...

Whether that last part was nonsense I don't know, it's about a year on from it and I learned my lesson....

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Riesen_Meal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Nonsense the last part as the car could have been sold to a new owner that would have no idea as to your past antics.

Never even crossed my mind!

Good thinking Fred...

Discodog

If you were prosecuted surely you could just say that the clamp can't of been locked properly as it came apart when you touched it. Unless they have CCTV how could they prove that the lock was picked ?

Pat Mustard

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Spot on.

dar100

If they don't get the clamp back, there is no evidence of a crime occurring

Pro Hoc Vice

dar100 wrote: »

If they don't get the clamp back, there is no evidence of a crime occurring

That could then be theft rather than criminal damage.

K.Flyer

Or you could take out your clamped frustration on... erm.. your car!
Like this.. :rolleyes: :pac:

dar100

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That could then be theft rather than criminal damage.

But there is no evidence of a crime

GM228

dar100 wrote: »

But there is no evidence of a crime

Evidence could be CCTV, witnesses etc.

If there's none of that then fair enough nothing can be done.

dar100

GM228 wrote: »

Evidence could be CCTV, witnesses etc.

If there's none of that then fair enough nothing can be done.

exactly, which was my first point

Pro Hoc Vice

dar100 wrote: »

But there is no evidence of a crime

Have you ever watched a real district court criminal trial, the evidence could be someone seeing the accused picking up the clamp, it could be the accused admitting something in interview, (you would be surprised what people admit) it could be CCTV evidence. Just because the clamp is missing does not mean evidence will not exist.

Pro Hoc Vice

dar100 wrote: »

[/B]
exactly, which was my first point

No the point was with out the clamp there is no evidence. That may or may not be right and after an investigation including interview much could turn up.

dar100

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Have you ever watched a real district court criminal trial, the evidence could be someone seeing the accused picking up the clamp, it could be the accused admitting something in interview, (you would be surprised what people admit) it could be CCTV evidence. Just because the clamp is missing does not mean evidence will not exist.

You seem to misrepresent want I am saying... with out the clamp, there is no evidence that an individual in question removed the clamp. Just like without a body there is no concrete evidence of a murder taking place.

CCTV or admissions, or a witness, are external evidence. I'm solely speaking about the lack a a present clamp
FYI trials don't happen in the district court.

hullaballoo

dar100 wrote: »

You seem to misrepresent want I am saying... with out the clamp, there is no evidence that an individual in question removed the clamp. Just like without a body there is no concrete evidence of a murder taking place.

CCTV or admissions, or a witness, are external evidence. I'm solely speaking about the lack a a present clamp
FYI trials don't happen in the district court.

This is real life, not a concocted pseudo-legal television drama.

Of course you can prove a murder without a body.

FYI, hundreds of trials take place in the district court on a daily basis.

Pro Hoc Vice

dar100 wrote: »

You seem to misrepresent want I am saying... with out the clamp, there is no evidence that an individual in question removed the clamp. Just like without a body there is no concrete evidence of a murder taking place.

CCTV or admissions, or a witness, are external evidence. I'm solely speaking about the lack a a present clamp
FYI trials don't happen in the district court.

Without the clamp it will be difficult but not impossible as other evidence might exist.

No trials in DC? Really jury trials don't happen in DC but trials do

http://courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/87e92c08919cb0f180256d2b0046a092?OpenDocument

dar100

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Without the clamp it will be difficult but not impossible as other evidence might exist.

No trials in DC? Really jury trials don't happen in DC but trials do

http://courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/87e92c08919cb0f180256d2b0046a092?OpenDocument

Trials are with juries, and juries don't sit in DC

Grolschevik

dar100 wrote:

Trials are with juries, and juries don't sit in DC

"Trials by jury" are with juries. A subset of trials.

Pro Hoc Vice

dar100 wrote: »

Trials are with juries, and juries don't sit in DC

The district court rules would disagree with you. "Summary trial" DC "trial by indictment" Circuit Criminal Court and Central Criminal Court. But sure I have no idea nor do the District Court Rules

To quote District Court Rules "Order 23 Trial of summary offences."

Pat Mustard

dar100 wrote: »

Trials are with juries, and juries don't sit in DC

Some trials have juries but not all.

Juries do not sit in the District Court.

dar100 wrote: »

FYI trials don't happen in the district court.

Absolutely incorrect.

GM228

Best definition of trial I've come accross:-

Trial = a proceeding in which opposing parties present evidence and make arguments on the application of the law before a judge or jury.

Galway K9

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/18/emmabrockes

This is exact way i did my clamp back in Galway Docks. Takes a bit of time though and you are panicking that the clamper will be back any minute.

Pat Mustard

Galway K9 wrote: »

This is exact way i did my clamp back in Galway Docks. Takes a bit of time though and you are panicking that the clamper will be back any minute.

Sure, don't worry about that now. Worry about your written confession on boards.ie.