Are there police out there who truly don't understand the legal system?

FireFoxBoy

I got that impression in the Uk when I ran into some of Britain's ''Police Intelligence'' and the ''National Crime Agency''.

Peregrinus

There's (at least) two possible explanations for why you got that impression, FireFoxBoy, only one of which is that's it's the police who don't understand the legal system.

More seriously, we can't possible say whether there's any accuracy in your perception when you are so coy with the details of what misunderstandings you identified and how you identified them.

Could your perception be correct? Yes, it could. Or it could be complete b@lls. We have know way of knowing.

Is that any help? ;-)

Victor

There is also the matter of the police willfully mis-stating the law. Or indeed confusion ab initio.

So, four options.

johnnyskeleton

I dont understand the legal system.

At times I can get to grips with parts, but understanding the whole is like visualising the distancs between the Earth and Betelguise.

GM228

There is a big difference between knowing the "legal system" and knowing the "law", police apply and enforce the laws of the country within the confines of the law, they don't apply and enforce the legal system, I would not expect them to know or understand the legal system to the same level they should know and understand the law.

When Gardaí are in Templemore they do learn about the legal system aswell as the law, but it would not be the same degree of understanding the legal system as required for entry to the Law Society or Kings Inn for example.

My brother is a Garda, he knows the law inside out, however when we have discussions about the legal system in general I have often got a "oh I didn't know that" response from him, some parts of the legal system still confuse and surprise the police, however the same can also be said from time to time of anyone involved in the legal system.

Most police will know the law pretty well, especially common everyday laws, some lesser used/little known laws they would need to brush up on to clarify what is/isn't allowed for example especially when common law is at play, the exact same applies to anyone involved in the legal system, even judges.

It can often take a bit of time to track down what is/isn't allowed under common law. Legal professions often take days/weeks trying to find applicable case law.

Police are kept up to date with major changes of legislation/common law via initial training, memos and AG advise, but when something unusual pops up which may be defined by say a case which happened over 100 years ago it isn't reasonable to expect the police to know the applicable laws, as I said even judges sometimes need to clarify such things - we are only human at the end of the day and not robots.

Knowing the legal system is a little different, whilst the police will be very well up on certain aspects of the legal system such as common law and what it means to them they may not have a great understanding of how it is derived.

hullaballoo

The primary example of the general inability to understand the legal system is the surprise and indignation that can be seen here when it's pointed out that a parking offence is a criminal one and can result in a criminal conviction and record.

Pat Mustard

hullaballoo wrote: »

The primary example of the general inability to understand the legal system is the surprise and indignation that can be seen here when it's pointed out that a parking offence is a criminal one and can result in a criminal conviction and record.

How dare you call my little Johnny a criminal?! I'll have you know that he's an engineer!

Lux23

There are plenty of lawyers who don't understand the justice system too.

5rtytry56

Pat Mustard wrote: »

How dare you call my little Johnny a criminal?! I'll have you know that he's an engineer!

How dare you label my Jenny a criminal?! My little Jenny has a PhD.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pat Mustard

Lux23 wrote: »

There are plenty of lawyers who don't understand the justice system too.

The Man in the Pub
Solves your legal problems

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's (at least) two possible explanations for why you got that impression, FireFoxBoy, only one of which is that's it's the police who don't understand the legal system.

More seriously, we can't possible say whether there's any accuracy in your perception when you are so coy with the details of what misunderstandings you identified and how you identified them.

Could your perception be correct? Yes, it could. Or it could be complete b@lls. We have know way of knowing.

Is that any help? ;-)

no

hullaballoo

lawred2 wrote: »

no

Brilliant. I had been wondering all morning what he meant. :pac:

lawred2

hullaballoo wrote: »

Brilliant. I had been wondering all morning what he meant. :pac:

glad to help

Lux23

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The Man in the Pub
Solves your legal problems

I don't know what this is supposed to mean but I do know some lawyers who genuinely have no clue about how certain areas of the justice system work. It's huge so that should be no surprise.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

There are police that don't understand certain sections of certain acts.

The Non Fatal Offences against the person Act 1997 is a good one. The sections on harassment of debtors are often brushed off by them as a civil matter.

Just because the Gardaí may not apply S10 of the Act does not mean they don't understand it can apply, not applying it is not the same as not understanding it. It is also difficult to prove to the required standard especially when creditors use the reasonable excuse exception which is often enough to diminish any possibility of criminal liability meaning civil recourse as the only option.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I wouldn't mind if they would investigate the allegations and then said there was nowt they could do rather than just "civil matter" you from the outset.

Complaint and investigation goes as follows:-

A: They keep ringing me looking for their money.

Guard: Do you owe them money?

A: Yes, but.......

Guard: They have a "reasonable excuse" to ring you bringing them outside the scope of S10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, sorry it's a civil matter.

That is generally why they say it's a civil matter, even if a Guard formed a different opinion the chances of a successful prosecution I imagine would be slim, now if you weren't actually their debtor that would be different.

We all agree it is wrong, but the law does not always be on our side nor does it make it easy to combat such actions.

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

jimmycrackcorm

hullaballoo wrote:

The primary example of the general inability to understand the legal system is the surprise and indignation that can be seen here when it's pointed out that a parking offence is a criminal one and can result in a criminal conviction and record.

There's a problem when probably 99% of the population would express surprise at that.

The other 1% would be solicitors specializing in parking tickets.

hullaballoo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

There's a problem when probably 99% of the population would express surprise at that.

The other 1% would be solicitors specializing in parking tickets.

Swing and a miss, I'm afraid.

NUTLEY BOY

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think that the problem there is that if a particular set of facts could be be the basis of both a civil matter and a criminal matter the "leave it to civil remedy" default is applied too easily.

In response to the original post, I would say that Gardai understand the legal system quite well and you might underestimate them if you think otherwise. However, Gardai may make errors of law and that is not very surprising given the large volumes of law that they are now supposed to be able to master and apply during the course of their primary function which is to investigate and collect evidence.

FireFoxBoy

Well it's about how guilt is interpreted by certain people. Say for instance somebody allegedly carried out a crime but it isn't proven in court, isn't that person still innocent in the eyes of the law?

Peregrinus

Depends on what you think "innocent in the eyes of the law" means. They haven't been convicted of a crime, meaning that the state has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed a crime. The courts generally don't investigate whether people are innocent, and don't make findings of innocence.

On edit: I realise your question covers the situation not only of someone who has been tried and acquitted, but of someone who hasn't been charged or tried at all.

No, the police are not obliged to treat such persons as though they were factually innocent. If the police had to do that, then strictly speaking they could never arrest or charge any suspect for any crime, because what would be the point of arresting a person who is "innocent in the eyes of the law"?