question about apollo house

judeboy101

Assuming the owners of Apollo house didn't allow people onto the site, I have two questions

1. Why did ags not remove trespassers?
2. Why did courts not immediately remove them?


I'm only asking as if I arrive home this evening to find 60people have moved in to my house would guards and courts allow them to stay?

punisher5112

Everyone is afraid of the racist card, ethnic groups and homeless.

Use any of the above and you will be left alone.

If it were a house and had your belongings it would be different but because the building was empty and under state control it was easier to leave them be as it was Christmas and nobody in the government wants upset any of the above.

judeboy101

punisher5112 wrote: »

Everyone is afraid of the racist card, ethnic groups and homeless.

Use any of the above and you will be left alone.

If it were a house and had your belongings it would be different but because the building was empty and under state control it was easier to leave them be as it was Christmas and nobody in the government wants upset any of the above.

Am I naive in thinking that the courts apply the law and are blind to popular opinion?

Vizzy

Trespass is not a criminal matter(I think) so the owners need to go to Court and seek an Order to have them removed.
This has been granted and the persons are due to vacate it by 12.00 noon on 11th Jan.

judeboy101

Vizzy wrote: »

Trespass is not a criminal matter(I think) so the owners need to go to Court and seek an Order to have them removed.
This has been granted and the persons are due to vacate it by 12.00 noon on 11th Jan.

I'd live to know how getting into a locked building is not criminal, so again its not illegal for 60people to be in my house without permission so long as they don't don't threaten me or damage my property?

GM228

judeboy101 wrote: »

I'd live to know how getting into a locked building is not criminal, so again its not illegal for 60people to be in my house without permission so long as they don't don't threaten me or damage my property?

Trespass in itself isn't illegal or an offence (bar some exceptions), how entry is gained however could be criminal, for example breaking a locked door to gain entry would be criminal damage, but the trespass in itself is a civil matter.

What is intended as a result of the trespass is what is important otherwise to determine if there is a criminal issue, for example if someone unlawfully enters a premises with the intention of commiting an arrestable offence then it's an offence of burglary, or if the trespass is done in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person then it's an offence.

billy few mates

Who's paying the electricity bill there...?

Denny_Crane

You'd think in a country with Ireland's history the reasons behind laws regarding occupation not being draconian would be fairly clear.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Allinall

judeboy101 wrote: »

I'd live to know how getting into a locked building is not criminal, so again its not illegal for 60people to be in my house without permission so long as they don't don't threaten me or damage my property?

I would have thought if there were 60 people in your house without your permission , and you didn't make a complaint to the guards, then nothing would be done .

That appears to be the position in Apollo House.

If the owners ( NAMA) really wanted to have vacant possession , then I would think the guards, backed by a court order would ensure that the trespassers were removed.

L1011

The court order exists but is stayed until next week. Can't do anything yet realistically

Sleeper12

judeboy101 wrote:

1. Why did ags not remove trespassers? 2. Why did courts not immediately remove them?

Sworn evidence was given by Peter McVerry that the beds were needed over the Christmas. No one but the judge can confirm or deny if this is the reason he let them stay for 3weeks.
All sides seemed content with the result

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sleeper12

Fred Swanson wrote:

Next week the law will move in and cut off the electric and water. They won't be long leaving.

We shall not, we shall not be moved... The volunteers have to go back to college soon anyway.

judeboy101

Allinall wrote: »

I would have thought if there were 60 people in your house without your permission , and you didn't make a complaint to the guards, then nothing would be done .

That appears to be the position in Apollo House.

If the owners ( NAMA) really wanted to have vacant possession , then I would think the guards, backed by a court order would ensure that the trespassers were removed.

Ags were called but informed security firm in charge as there was no criminal damage or intent then it was s civil matter.

Allinall

judeboy101 wrote: »

Ags were called but informed security firm in charge as there was no criminal damage or intent then it was s civil matter.

Who called them?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

WinnyThePoo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Sworn evidence was given by Peter McVerry that the beds were needed over the Christmas. No one but the judge can confirm or deny if this is the reason he let them stay for 3weeks.
All sides seemed content with the result

Do you have a direct quote?

endagibson

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

<<Mod deletion. Pls keep it civil>>.

coylemj

I understand that the people in Apollo House are the types that get booted out of hostels for unsocial behaviour, it's hard to see where they can be accommodated. Wasn't there a recent proposal to open some kind of shelter in Dublin that was opposed pretty strenuously by locals?

My objection to the tactics being used here is that it doesn't represent any kind of long term solution to the problem. An office block is completely unsuitable for habitation and this was pointed out initially by Peter McVerry who stated that he was not in favour of what they were doing but then in the face of massive media coverage and and lots of luvvies and pop stars coming on board, even McVerry had to fall in line and say how great the whole project was.

lifeandtimes

What I'd find interesting now is that if I was to sander down there and tried to walk in to the place I would be denied entry due to trespassing or something similar in an ironic situation by the people trespassing

Carawaystick

judeboy101 wrote: »

I'm only asking as if I arrive home this evening to find 60people have moved in to my house would guards and courts allow them to stay?

There's a difference between vacant land and a family home.

coylemj

Carawaystick wrote: »

There's a difference between vacant land and a family home.

Apollo House is not 'vacant land'. Isn't there an act dealing with 'forcible occupation'?

Denny_Crane

coylemj wrote: »

Apollo House is not 'vacant land'. Isn't there an act dealing with 'forcible occupation'?

Still, the point is valid. There's a world of difference between occupying a vacant office block and a lived in family home. I've been avoiding this tbh so I'm not really sure what the feck is going on but frankly I'd rather it be an office block owned by NAMA than some empty house owned by a private citizen.

I really don't go in for this people power crap and frankly these idiots at property auctions and alike should be herded on to Inishshark and made to live on digestive biscuits for a month but in this case, given a total failure of government to tackle the issue, I've some sympathy.

judeboy101

Carawaystick wrote: »

There's a difference between vacant land and a family home.

Is property not just property in the eyes of the law? What if those 60 ppl sre in an unused spare room of my house or in my spacious man cave that I made in the garden shed?

athtrasna

It's not owned by nama though, it's in receivership. That's totally different

RayCun

coylemj wrote: »

I understand that the people in Apollo House are the types that get booted out of hostels for unsociable behaviour

My understanding is that everyone there has to be sent on by experienced people, it is a dry facility, and they are quite strict about this

Do you have anything to back up your understanding?

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

Apollo House is not 'vacant land'. Isn't there an act dealing with 'forcible occupation'?

You're probably thinking of the Forcible Entry and Occupation Act 1971.

Note that entry into and occupation of property is not "forcible" simply because you don't think they should be there/wish they would leave. In particular the offence of forcible occupation requires (among others things) that the occupier has barricaded the property in an attempt to keep out those with legal right to enter. The offence would probably be better called forcible exclusive occupation. I don't now if the occupiers at Apollo House have tried to barricade keep the receiver out - for all I know he may be welcome to visit - but that would be an essential element of any forcible occupation charge.

The bottom line here is that disputes over who is entitled to enter in or occupy property are fundamentally civil matters - inconsistent claims over property between two (or more) private citizens. They get thrashed out in the courts between the citizens concerned. That's why when your landlord wants to evict you for not paying the rent/for playing your music too loud/because he wants to redevelop the property he doesn't call the guards; he serves a notice to quit and, if that doesn't do the trick, he issues court proceedings.

There's a variety of offences that can be committed in the context of property disputes - forcible occupation is one - but I don't know if any of them has been committed, or alleged to have been committed, in this instance. And, if it has, I don't know that anyone has complained to the guards about it. And, if there has been a complaint, there's a prosecutorial discretion about whether arrests and prosecutions are the most effective way of dealing with the matter.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

Is property not just property in the eyes of the law? What if those 60 ppl sre in an unused spare room of my house or in my spacious man cave that I made in the garden shed?

The guards are not interested unless an offence has being committed. Simply being there without having first obtained your permission is not an offence.

Sleeper12

coylemj wrote:

Apollo House is not 'vacant land'. Isn't there an act dealing with 'forcible occupation'?

Police went down first night & found no evidence of forced entry. This is why they told receiver it was a a civil matter and a court order was needed.
The take over of apartments in finglas didn't need a court order as the police found evidence of forced entry.
It's believed someone gave a set of keys to Apollo house. Hopefully eventually the truth will come out

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

judeboy101

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So if I leave my back door and side gate open one night and wake up in the morn to a family living in my spare room guards can shift them out?

endagibson

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would be theft if you or I did it.

Denny_Crane

Theft.

4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person does not appropriate property without the consent of its owner if—

(a) the person believes that he or she has the owner's consent, or would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation of the property and the circumstances in which it was appropriated, or

(b) (except where the property came to the person as trustee or personal representative) he or she appropriates the property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps,

but consent obtained by deception or intimidation is not consent for those purposes.

...


(4) If at the trial of a person for theft the court or jury, as the case may be has to consider whether the person believed—

(a) that he or she had not acted dishonestly, or

(b) that the owner of the property concerned had consented or would have consented to its appropriation, or

(c) that the owner could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps,

the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the court or jury shall have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether the person so believed.

(5) In this section—

“appropriates”, in relation to property, means usurps or adversely interferes with the proprietary rights of the owner of the property;

“depriving” means temporarily or permanently depriving.


(6) A person guilty of theft is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

There's about a dozen different ways reconnecting the electricity isn't theft.

Sleeper12

endagibson wrote:

That would be theft if you or I did it.

I'd imagine it's illegal for anyone except ESB networks to reconnect the electricity so I think they broke the law doing this but it's only theft if they don't pay the bill on the meter. There is no suggestion yet that they won't pay the bills

GM228

endagibson wrote: »

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Surely reconnecting the electricity is a criminal offence?

That would be theft if you or I did it.

Denny_Crane wrote: »

There's about a dozen different ways reconnecting the electricity isn't theft.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'd imagine it's illegal for anyone except ESB networks to reconnect the electricity so I think they broke the law doing this but it's only theft if they don't pay the bill on the meter. There is no suggestion yet that they won't pay the bills

Theft of electricity does not come under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 which Denny has quoted, but rather under S15 of the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (as amended), even interference with, diversion of or connection of electricity comes under the heading of "Theft of electricity and gas and related offences" section.

Basically the doing of "any thing" without lawful authority to a meter, line, fitting, piping, receptacle or other apparatus, or any component of any such apparatus is considered theft.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/35/enacted/en/print

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sleeper12

GM228 wrote:

Theft of electricity does not come under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 which Denny has quoted, but rather under S15 of the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (as amended), even interference with electricity comes under the heading of "Theft of electricity and gas and related offences" section.

I didn't know that. Thanks

hullaballoo

The energy market and everything to do with it is highly regulated here. Without getting into a huge amount of detail, this harks back (albeit not that far back) to when the State produced and sold all of the country's electricity. Any kind of shenanigans or interfering with electricity here is pretty much a capital offence by comparison to corresponding offences on the statute book committed against other industries or persons.

Theft of electricity is its own offence and as far as I can tell the current iteration of the offence is here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/act/3/section/5/enacted/en/html

Sub-section (3) is relevant here (after taking into account the lengthy interpretation sub-section (1)):

"(3) A person who unlawfully interferes with any article owned by or operated by a distribution system operator or transmission system operator as appropriate commits an offence."

The penalty is contained in sub-section (7):

"(7) (a) A person who commits an offence under subsection (2), (3) or (5) is liable—

(i) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €150,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both."

There are other parts to that section that might be applicable in relation to reconnecting electricity to an unregistered connection etc. The whole statutory regime around electricity is enough that there are probably separate offences for each and every step involved in reconnecting a disconnected premises too.

hullaballoo

I should learn to waffle less.

Denny_Crane

I stand corrected.

endagibson

hullaballoo wrote: »

I should learn to waffle less.

Or learn to make good waffles. One cancels the other out I believe.

Carawaystick

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

At the risk of derailing this thread, S15(2)a seems overly broad

quote=Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1995 15(2)a]
A person who dishonestly uses, or causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity or gas shall be guilty of an offence.
[/quote]

If I leave a torch on, and waste electricity I'm guilty of an offence?

If I rub a baloon on someone's head and don't at least mess by getting their hair to stand up, I'm guilty of an offence...

GM228

Carawaystick wrote: »

At the risk of derailing this thread, S15(2)a seems overly broad

Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1995 15(2)a wrote:

A person who dishonestly uses, or causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity or gas shall be guilty of an offence.

If I leave a torch on, and waste electricity I'm guilty of an offence?

If I rub a baloon on someone's head and don't at least mess by getting their hair to stand up, I'm guilty of an offence...

The important part of 15 (2)(a) is "dishonestly", it would have to be an act which isn't honest.

Batteries don't actually contain or produce electricity. As electricity isn't defined we have to go by the literal meaning - electricity being a flow of electric current, batteries simply produce an electric current.

Despite being called static electricity it's actually not electricity, it's simply an imbalance of posative and negative charges.

Literal meaning of electricity aside, more importantly I'm sure any court would agree the teleological meaning didn't include batteries or static electricity

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would only enable the arrest of the person who reconnected the electricity, though - assuming you could identify them. It wouldn't enable the arrest of anyone who happened to be on the premises.

oppenheimer1

Unless the building was facing imminent demolition, its unlikely the electricity supply was disconnected.

All it probably took was to close a few circuit breakers on the customer side to get the power back on.

I even imagine the heating was still on (at a low level) to prevent the building deteriorating or having pipes burst. Its likely the water was turned off, but again without disconnection and simply opening the customer side supply valve would bring the system back up.

Kevin3

Bit late to this but, people don't seem to understand that the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act 1971 effectively makes squatting a criminal offence in Ireland.

Perhaps people should look at the definition of 'forcibly' from the legislation and then in particular the offence under section 3 of 'remaining in forcible occupation of land' (including buildings).

UCD School of Law have a nice summary piece on their FaceBook page. See anything familiar? History has an amazing way of repeating itself:

UCD School of Law
September 6, 2013 · Dublin ·
"a direct and openly-expressed challenge to ownership of private property" (Des O'Malley TD, 11 August 1971, 71 Seanad Debates col 96)

Today is the forty-second anniversary of the coming into operation of the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act, 1971. It was aimed mainly at combating the activities of the Dublin Housing Action Committee. This group co-ordinated protests against the housing shortage in Dublin and various forms of direct action - including squatting - in response to it. Several various prominent left-wing politicians and activists such as Proinsias De Rossa, Máirín De Búrca, Cathal Gouding, Fr Austin Flannery OP and Michael O'Riordan were involved in the DHAC. It included members of both wings of Sinn Féin - the one which evolved into The Workers Party and that which became Provisional Sinn Féin. The DHAC is generally regarded as an important milestone in the efforts of the former group to re-orient the political activities of its part of the republican movement away from the conflict in Northern Ireland and towards socialist politics, North and South.

The Act - which was strongly opposed by several organisations, including the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Labour Party and the Union of Students in Ireland - responded to the DHAC's campaign by making both squatting (sections 2 and 3) and the encouragement or advocacy of squatting (section 4) criminal offences. The Act, however, was only one element in the scenario that brought the DHAC to an end, including differences among the committee members over their attitude to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

The Wikipedia entry on the DHAC gives a short, well-referenced account of its activities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Housing_Action_Committee

For the text of the Act, see:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1971/act/25/enacted/en/html

For an excerpt from RTÉ's 'Reeling in the Years' programme about the DHAC, including a short clip of an interview with Máirín De Búrca, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me9HuSXh_bs

For a recent anarchist analysis of the DHAC and the Act's role in bringing its activities to an end:
http://www.wsm.ie/c/squatting-politics-dublin-housing-action-committee

Source: https://www.facebook.com/UCDSchoolofLaw/posts/658743747483286

The whole reason the legislation was introduced was to combat the type of action the people involved in Apollo House are engaged in. It can similarly be used in any squatting situation giving gardaí powers of arrest for offenders.

ohnonotgmail

Kevin3 wrote: »

Bit late to this but, people don't seem to understand that the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act 1971 effectively makes squatting a criminal offence in Ireland.

Perhaps people should look at the definition of 'forcibly' from the legislation and then in particular the offence under section 3 of 'remaining in forcible occupation of land' (including buildings).

UCD School of Law have a nice summary piece on their FaceBook page. See anything familiar? History has an amazing way of repeating itself:



The whole reason the legislation was introduced was to combat the type of action the people involved in Apollo House are engaged in. It can similarly be used in any squatting situation giving gardaí powers of arrest for offenders.

What actions by the group meet the definition below?

“forcibly” means using or threatening to use force in relation to person or property, and for this purpose participation in action or conduct with others in numbers or circumstances calculated to prevent by intimidation the exercise by any person of his rights in relation to any property shall constitute a threat to use force, and “forcible” shall be construed accordingly;

Elemonator

GM228 wrote: »

Trespass in itself isn't illegal or an offence (bar some exceptions), how entry is gained however could be criminal, for example breaking a locked door to gain entry would be criminal damage, but the trespass in itself is a civil matter.

What is intended as a result of the trespass is what is important otherwise to determine if there is a criminal issue, for example if someone unlawfully enters a premises with the intention of commiting an arrestable offence then it's an offence of burglary, or if the trespass is done in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person then it's an offence.

Fascinating stuff actually. I'll never forget accidentally wondering into the wrong field in the dark one night (they all look the same if you aren't local) only to be threatened by a farmer with dogs. He alluded to fire arms too.

Kevin3

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What actions by the group meet the definition below?

“forcibly” means using or threatening to use force in relation to person or property, and for this purpose participation in action or conduct with others in numbers or circumstances calculated to prevent by intimidation the exercise by any person of his rights in relation to any property shall constitute a threat to use force, and “forcible” shall be construed accordingly;

Well watching the news, I see a lot of men in high vis jackets manning the gate to the premises. Do you think there would be no problems if the receivers came round to take back their premises? Do you think that the members of 'Home Sweet Home' presence in such numbers is calculated to prevent by intimidation the exercise by any person of his rights? If you're disingenuous enough to answer 'no' to both those questions and also feel that (probably correctly) that it would be difficult to PROVE those assertions then consider my second point.

Section 3 deals with persons remaining in forcible occupation. In this section forcible occupation includes any attempt to block some one lawfully entering the land and 'the act of physically resisting a lawful attempt at ejection from land'. This means that the owner or anyone acting on their behalf can attempt to remove any trespasser any any resistance completes the offence and gives gardai power to arrest them under section 9.

Again I stand by my point that the legislation effectively makes squatting an offence.

ohnonotgmail

Kevin3 wrote: »

Well watching the news, I see a lot of men in high vis jackets manning the gate to the premises. Do you think there would be no problems if the receivers came round to take back their premises? Do you think that the members of 'Home Sweet Home' presence in such numbers is calculated to prevent by intimidation the exercise by any person of his rights? If you're disingenuous enough to answer 'no' to both those questions and also feel that (probably correctly) that it would be difficult to PROVE those assertions then consider my second point.

Section 3 deals with persons remaining in forcible occupation. In this section forcible occupation includes any attempt to block some one lawfully entering the land and 'the act of physically resisting a lawful attempt at ejection from land'. This means that the owner or anyone acting on their behalf can attempt to remove any trespasser any any resistance completes the offence and gives gardai power to arrest them under section 9.

Again I stand by my point that the legislation effectively makes squatting an offence.

has there been

any attempt to block some one lawfully entering the land

?

have there been any instances of

'the act of physically resisting a lawful attempt at ejection from land'.

?

i am not aware of any such actions. are you aware of any? until there is the act does not apply. what i think might happen is of no consequence