Being legally able to commit murder in zone of death?

lifeandtimes

Interesting article

http://www.weirduniverse.net/blog/comments/yellowstone_zone_of_death1/

"Yellowstone National Park contains a 50-square mile "zone of death" where, legal scholars suggest, a person could commit murder without fear of prosecution. This zone is the part of the park that extends into Idaho. 

The reason for this free-pass-for-murder lies with the Sixth Amendment which guarantees a defendant the right to a trial by a jury "of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." The zone is in the State of Idaho, but because of the unique legal status of Yellowstone, it's in the judicial District of Wyoming. Therefore, to prosecute anyone a court would need to form a jury of people who live simultaneously in the State of Idaho and the District of Wyoming, and no one fits that bill because no one lives in the Idaho part of Yellowstone. Without being able to create a jury, a trial couldn't proceed."

This is all very good however I believe the culprit would need to get the person they want to kill to this section of the park and for whatever reason when the get there to kill that person on a whim. Otherwise they have had to get there with out leaving any evidence that they pre planned it anywhere else as this would fall into premeditated and the could be tried in their local district for premeditated murder or alternatively stay in that section of the park forever.

You guys any thoughts on how murder could be done and also how it couldn't be done?

Really Interested

not a great source but a start

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicinage_Clause



In murder cases arising from the Indian Territory,[37] Navassa Island,[38] and the No Man's Land of the Oklahoma Panhandle,[39] the Supreme Court has held that the Clause places no limits on the prosecution of crimes committed outside the territory of a state.
The Clause does not require a jury drawn from the judicial division (a subset of a federal judicial district) within which the crime occurred; rather, the jury may be drawn from any division of the district.[40][n 3] Nor does the Clause prevent the jury from being drawn solely from a judicial division, or any other subset of a judicial district (rather than the entire judicial district).[42][n 4]
"...wherein the crime shall have been committed,..."

The "wherein the crime shall have been committed" language of the clause is in parallel with the venue provision of Article Three—"where the said Crimes shall have been committed."[15]—and with Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure—"where the offense was committed."[44] The three provisions have been interpreted in tandem to refer to the locus delicti of the offense.[45]
"...which district shall have been previously ascertained by law"

Lower courts are split on whether the Clause requires that the defendant be tried in a judicial district that was in existence at the time the crime was committed. Some courts have held that it does.[46] Others have held that it does not and that the district need only be ascertained prior to trial.[47] Even proponents of the former view have found no infirmity when Congress prospectively divides a judicial district, but retains the former configuration for past offenses.[48]



Plenty to get started there.

seamus

If you brought someone there for the purposes of murdering them, even if you couldn't be tried for the murder, you could certainly be done for conspiracy to murder and all sorts.

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

If you brought someone there for the purposes of murdering them, even if you couldn't be tried for the murder, you could certainly be done for conspiracy to murder and all sorts.

Not if it was a solo crime, you can't conspire with yourself.

lifeandtimes

coylemj wrote: »

Not if it was a solo crime, you can't conspire with yourself.

Which is why I said premeditated murder would apply if you brought someone there so the act of killing would need to be thought of when you actually got there with this person and happen there as well.

lifeandtimes

Really Interested wrote: »

not a great source but a start

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicinage_Clause



In murder cases arising from the Indian Territory,[37] Navassa Island,[38] and the No Man's Land of the Oklahoma Panhandle,[39] the Supreme Court has held that the Clause places no limits on the prosecution of crimes committed outside the territory of a state.
The Clause does not require a jury drawn from the judicial division (a subset of a federal judicial district) within which the crime occurred; rather, the jury may be drawn from any division of the district.[40][n 3] Nor does the Clause prevent the jury from being drawn solely from a judicial division, or any other subset of a judicial district (rather than the entire judicial district).[42][n 4]
"...wherein the crime shall have been committed,..."

The "wherein the crime shall have been committed" language of the clause is in parallel with the venue provision of Article Three—"where the said Crimes shall have been committed."[15]—and with Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure—"where the offense was committed."[44] The three provisions have been interpreted in tandem to refer to the locus delicti of the offense.[45]
"...which district shall have been previously ascertained by law"

Lower courts are split on whether the Clause requires that the defendant be tried in a judicial district that was in existence at the time the crime was committed. Some courts have held that it does.[46] Others have held that it does not and that the district need only be ascertained prior to trial.[47] Even proponents of the former view have found no infirmity when Congress prospectively divides a judicial district, but retains the former configuration for past offenses.[48]



Plenty to get started there.

Thanks for this. I should have put more in but I put down the general jist

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

According to wikipida above (and i have not read the cases yet but i will) they decided this issue.

coylemj

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Which is why I said premeditated murder would apply if you brought someone there so the act of killing would need to be thought of when you actually got there with this person and happen there as well.

I repeat - you cannot conspire with yourself. Even if you planned beforehand to kill them when you got there, that is not a conspiracy, just an intent which in and of itself is not a crime when you act alone.

Showing or inferring intent can assist in convicting for murder as opposed to manslaughter and can be used to rebut a claim that the death was self defence or an accident but if I, acting alone, bring someone to a spot with the intention of killing him and I change my mind at the last minute and do not harm him in any way, there is no crime disclosed.

There would need to be others involved in order for aiding and abetting to apply so if you brought the person there and killed them, the crime would be of murder at that spot and there would be no other crime involved.

lifeandtimes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I think the general point is you couldn't be prosecuted for anything in this zone. Where do you get the jury from?

Yes the jury have to be from both districts which isn't possible as no one lives in that zone.

But a quick look at the arguments says
First, the government might be able to charge other crimes that did not occur exclusively within the Idaho portion of the park (for example, if the defendant(s) conspired elsewhere).[53] Second, the government could charge crimes for which the maximum authorized sentence is six months or less, to which the jury right does not attach.[54] Third, the Clause might permit the government to encourage potential jurors to move into the Idaho portion of the park after the crime.[55] Fourth, the government might argue for a purposive, rather than textualist, interpretation of the Clause by arguing that a jury drawn from elsewhere could satisfy the purposes of the Clause.[56]Kalt also notes that the Vicinage Clause would not protect against civil liability orvigilante justice.[57]

It's interesting as there is no case law to refer too so everything up until this point is all in theory. However I have no doubt the government would find a way to prosecute

lifeandtimes

coylemj wrote: »

I repeat - you cannot conspire with yourself. Even if you planned beforehand to kill them when you got there, that is not a conspiracy, just an intent which in and of itself is not a crime when you act alone.

Showing or inferring intent can assist in convicting for murder as opposed to manslaughter and can be used to rebut a claim that the death was self defence or an accident but if I, acting alone, bring someone to a spot with the intention of killing him and I change my mind at the last minute and do not harm him in any way, there is no crime disclosed.

There would need to be others involved in order for aiding and abetting to apply so if you brought the person there and killed them, the crime would be of murder at that spot and there would be no other crime involved.

Have you ever heard of cannibal cop?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_Valle

The guy wrote stories of cannabilism of his wife,all fantasy but was prosecuted for what he wrote

Victor

It's simple, have the cops execute the accused on site - the cops won't be able to be done for murder either.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lifeandtimes

Victor wrote: »

It's simple, have the cops execute the accused on site - the cops won't be able to be done for murder either.

How?

The cops would need to know ahead of time and wait there for the act to be commited and then kill them. Won't happen

lifeandtimes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

What would happen if the murderer turned himself into police in a different county/state?

He would be brought back to the district where the act was commited to stand trial by a jury of said district

Victor

On the marginally related matter of Double Jeopardy: [noparse]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150377/?ref_=nv_sr_2[/noparse] (Don't read anything on the link if you want to see the film)

hullaballoo

coylemj wrote: »

Showing or inferring intent can assist in convicting for murder as opposed to manslaughter and can be used to rebut a claim that the death was self defence or an accident but if I, acting alone, bring someone to a spot with the intention of killing him and I change my mind at the last minute and do not harm him in any way, there is no crime disclosed.

There are more degrees of unlawful killing in the US than here, so premeditation is a factor there when deciding between first- and second-degree murder, afaik.

I would assume you are correct in relation to the need for there to be at least one co-conspirator in order for there to be a conspiracy, so conspiring to commit murder is unlikely to be available, although I do not know how that crime is defined in the US (and, let's face it, it could be anything over there.)

Thought crimes are not usually prosecuted in this jurisdiction (with one notable exception and possibly a few others) but the US is very different and may well have laws proscribing certain thoughts, which would explain how someone can be convicted for creating works of fantasy.

GM228

Whilst not as dramatic, due to a "legal loophole" you can't be prosecuted for a number of parking offences in the Phoenix Park such as parking on double yellow lines or parking within 5 metres of a junction etc (the more serious charge of dangerous parking could apply though).

lifeandtimes

GM228 wrote: »

Whilst not as dramatic, due to a "legal loophole" you can't be prosecuted for a number of parking offences in the Phoenix Park such as parking on double yellow lines or parking within 5 metres of a junction etc (the more serious charge of dangerous parking could apply though).

That's very interesting.

I wonder what other legal loopholes can be exploited in this country that haven't been closed off or resolved.

Though I guess most people on this forum wouldn't be fully knowledgeable to US law and as such my original question probably won't get much traction.

Maybe we could continue the thread regarding Irish legal loopholes that have and can be exploited or taken advantage of?

gizmo555

The Bir Tawil triangle is an 800 square mile area on the border between Egypt and Sudan which both countries deny they have jurisdiction over (basically, if either accepted jurisdiction over it, it would have to cede jurisdiction over another, more valuable, territory which is in dispute between them). It has been described as "the only place on Earth that was habitable but was not claimed by any recognised government."

Does this mean that no-one could be held accountable under any country's laws for actions carried out within the area?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

gizmo555

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I appreciate it would, at least, be difficult - but would it even be possible? What laws might apply? (Assuming we're not talking about crimes under international law, such as genocide or other crimes against humanity.)

Victor

Bir Tawil triangle - being former parts of the British Empire, might common law apply, hence the common law offence of murder?

Yellowstone - there is the matter of competing rights, while one has the right to a properly-constituted jury, one also has the right not to be murdered.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/9af10f17cb19e7376555e179091ae10e

"Held, that such acts did not require that jurors drawn for service in the Central division should be citizens residing in such division, it being suffi­cient that they resided within the district. -- Spencer v. United States, 169 F. 562, 563 (8th Cir. 1909)"

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Bir Tawil triangle - being former parts of the British Empire, might common law apply, hence the common law offence of murder?

Egypt was never technically a possession of the British crown, and British common law was never introduced. It was a protectorate - a formally separate distinct country with its own laws, institutions, etc, which had entered into a protective relationship with the UK (and also, incidentally, with France). The upshot was that the UK was responsible for Egypt's foreign affairs and defence, and both the UK and France had significant influence through their "advisers" over internal Egyptian affairs. But they never actually annexed Egypt and the basis of the Egyptian legal system, to this day, is Ottoman law, not common law.

Whether you argue for Ottoman law or common law to apply in Bir Tawil, it's safe to assume that both prescribe murder. But, as Fred point out, the issue is not whether murder is against the law, but whether a murder can be prosecuted, and by whom.

There are a variety of circumstances in which countries claim extraterritorial jurisdiction - the right to prosecute crimes committed outside their territory. Internationally, piracy has long been recognised as a crime which any country can prosecute, no matter where it has been committed. There's a growing view that war crimes and crimes against humanity are also in this class. Many countries assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over the murder of their own citizens, or over crimes (or some crimes) committed by their own citizens. Ireland, for example, claims the right to prosecute its own citizens for murder, manslaughter, treason and money laundering committed anywhere in the world, and also for child sexual abuse crimes committed anywhere, provided the acts concerned are unlawful in the place where committed as well as in Ireland. Other countries claim the right to prosecute for crimes against their citizens. (Boardies may remember a number of years back the Chilean ex-President Pinochet being detained in the UK on a Spanish warrant in relation to charges that he had tortured Spanish citizens in Chile.)

So, if A murders B in Bir Tawil, it's entirely possible that A could be prosecuted in his own country, if it claims the right to prosecute its own nationals for murders committed abroad, and/or that he could be prosecuted by B's country, if it claims the right to prosecute those who murder its nationals.

InTheTrees

If you murder someone in a "National" Park then isn't it a Federal crime? In which case it wouldn't be a state issue.

Peregrinus

InTheTrees wrote: »

If you murder someone in a "National" Park then isn't it a Federal crime? In which case it wouldn't be a state issue.

Yes, it is a federal crime. But:

- Federal law requires that you be tried by a jury from the state and judicial district where the crime was committed.

- This part of Yellowstone national park is in the State of Idaho but the judicial district of Wyoming.

- Therefore, the jury would have to be made of people who are resident in the State of Idaho and the judicial district of Wyoming.

- But this part of Yellowstone National Park is the only area that is in both the State of Idaho and the judicial district of Wyoming. And its uninhabited; nobody lives there, or may live there, because it's a National Park.

- So it's impossible to empanel a qualified jury.

- So you can't be tried.

GM228

For anyone interested here is Brian Kalt's original paper on the subject, the The Perfect Crime from 2005.

It does not seem to be well documented but his 2008 follow up paper Tabloid Constitutionalism: How a Bill Doesn't Become a Law is more interesting as it further deals with the issue and the Michael Belderrain case which dealt with the theory.

I apologies for the long quote but it's well worth the read.

In December 2005, Michael Belderrain illegally shot an elk in Montana. Because he was standing in Yellowstone National Park when he did it, and because he dragged the animal's head to his truck parked in Yellowstone, he was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. In July 2007, citing my article, he objected to being tried in Wyoming by Wyoming jurors: Article Ill of the Constitution gave him a right to be tried in Montana, and the Sixth Amendment gave him a right to be tried by jurors from the Montana portion of the park Unlike the Idaho portion of Yellowstone, the Montana portion actually has a few residents-enough that a proper Sixth Amendment jury trial is technically possible there, if not overly practical.

Belderrain's main goal was to go free, of course; as his motion put it:

While Mr. Belderrain acknowledges that standing on his Constitutional right to Montana vicinage makes it inconvenient to prosecute him, so do his other rights of criminal procedure .... If the only practical solution is for the Court to dismiss the charges, so it must be, because neither the statute creating the District of Wyoming, nor the criminal statutes involved may trump the Constitution

Still, the court had several options. It could respect Article III and order a Montana trial. It could respect the Sixth Amendment and order that the jury be drawn from the Montana portion. of the park. It could respect both provisions. Or it could declare that a Wyoming trial before a Wyoming jury somehow did not offend either provision. Whichever of these options it chose, though, the court (and the appellate court, if the decision was appealed) could resolve the issue decisively, either spurring Congress to act or spurring would-be felons to give up on committing the perfect crime.

Unfortunately, the court chose a fifth option: rejecting the theory without any analysis. The judge's opinion referred to my article as "interesting" and "eso-teric," but of "little practical value.".

Here is the sum of the judge's analysis of the issue, after noting my argument:

For practical purposes, any cause of action occurring within Yellowstone National Park, whether in Wyoming, Idaho, or Montana, must result in a jury trial in the District of Wyoming, and jurors selected from a pool of Wyoming citizens. To adopt a different position would create a virtual no man's land. Since there is no case law that states otherwise, this Court must dismiss Defendant's objection to a Wyoming jury panel.

The court's interpretation of the Sixth Amendment had one thing going for it-it put Belderrain behind bars. But the point of the Constitution is not to put people in prison, it is to put limits on the government. The judge's job is to protect the Constitution from statutes that violate it, not to protect prosecutors from the Constitution.

My article did not create a No Man's Land; Congress did when it put these parts of Montana and Idaho into the District of Wyoming.

There is nothing impractical or "esoteric" about the plain text of the Sixth Amendment. Congress could easily fix its mistake.

The problem was not that the judge rejected my interpretation of these constitutional clauses. It was that he offered no other interpretation to support his decision. In my article, I had sketched out some possible ways that a judge might interpret the Sixth Amendment to allow a criminal in the Zone of Death to be prosecuted. It can be done. But this judge didn't do it. Besides saying that my "literal" reading would have bad results, the only other point he made was that there was no case law accepting my theory. As a result, he said, he "must dismiss" Belderrain's argument.

But there was no case law rejecting my theory either. Courts consider new legal arguments all the time, and when they do, they are supposed to take a crack at them, not automatically rule for the government.

As already mentioned, moreover, the judge's "practical" concern was mis-placed. The Zone of Death is in the Idaho portion of Yellowstone, because nobody lives there. The Montana portion of Yellowstone has some residents,
and so is not necessarily a No Man's Land. In other words, even if the judge had agreed with my theory, he would not necessarily have had to free Belderrain. Moreover, in his haste to protect the prosecutor from the Sixth Amendment, the judge neglected Article Ill. Just because he refused to apply the Sixth Amendment did not mean he also had to ignore Article III's requirement that the trial be held in Montana. The State of Montana is definitely not a No Man's Land, and respecting just this constitutional requirement clearly would not have freed Belderrain.

Interestingly, in a newspaper interview, the U.S. Attorney in Idaho had suggested something similar for cases in the Idaho portion of the park. Specifi-cally, he surmised that Article IlI would "trump the statute that put the chunk of Idaho in the District of Wyoming." In other words, he believed that holding a trial in Idaho, before an Idaho jury-following Article Ill and respecting state lines, but ignoring the Sixth Amendment and district lines-would suffice and would allow a prosecution to go forward. At the time, I snidely characterized his argument as saying that the Sixth Amendment violates Article Ill and is unconstitutional. But this is at least better than the Belderrain decision, which held (if I might again be snide) that both Article I and the Sixth Amendment are illegal because they violate both the district-line statute and the prosecu-tion's interest in getting a conviction.

Because the judge's opinion was devoid of any analysis and turned on the lack of precedent, it cried out for the court of appeals to resolve the issue. Until the court of appeals acts, the Belderrain decision provides no disincentive to a criminal contemplating using the Zone of Death defense.

This is where the prosecutor's strategy came into play and made the situation worse. After Belderrain's argument failed, the prosecutor conditioned a plea deal on Belderrain not appealing the Zone of Death issue to the Tenth Circuit.

The deal allowed Belderrain to appeal some of the issues in his case, but not this one. Not only, then, is the only precedent against the Zone of Death argument an ultra-thin trial-court opinion, the prosecution has sent a message (accurate or not) that it wants to avoid Tenth Circuit review. This broadcasts to would-be criminals that the government is worried that the Tenth Circuit will free the defendant if and when it gets a Zone of Death case.

Maybe the Tenth Circuit would agree with me, and maybe it wouldn't. But what better case to get an answer than one like Belderrain's? He killed an elk, not a person. If the U.S. Attorney in Wyoming continues to condition plea deals on keeping the Zone of Death issue out of the Tenth Circuit, then the first person to actually appeal it will be someone who has nothing to lose-like a murderer.

If the Tenth Circuit agrees that the Zone of Death exists, the cost will be too high. A person, not an elk, will have been killed, and a killer, not a poacher, will have gone free. Even if the Tenth Circuit rejects the theory, thereby closing the loophole, it would only be after someone has been killed, possibly by someone inspired to conmit his crime by the loophole. It would be much better to let the court of appeals resolve the question at lower cost, sooner rather than later.

As I mentioned in Part I, when I wrote my article some people responded that the courts would never allow a criminal in this situation to go free.
My response was, why not? "Shut up," they explained. "The court just wouldn't." It turned out that these critics were right. But as frustrated as I was at the prospect of such a result, I had no idea that the prosecutor and judge would reach it in a way that would keep the loophole open so dangerously.

I'll note an important point Kalt states:-

In my article, I had sketched out some possible ways that a judge might interpret the Sixth Amendment to allow a criminal in the Zone of Death to be prosecuted. It can be done

So, a further development in the Michael Belderrain case came after the above paper was released and in 2009 he went to jail for 4 years which was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/90ca48ae7070023ccfa9980810a0882e?query=Michael%20Belderrain

Really Interested

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, it is a federal crime. But:

- Federal law requires that you be tried by a jury from the state and judicial district where the crime was committed.

- This part of Yellowstone national park is in the State of Idaho but the judicial district of Wyoming.

- Therefore, the jury would have to be made of people who are resident in the State of Idaho and the judicial district of Wyoming.

- But this part of Yellowstone National Park is the only area that is in both the State of Idaho and the judicial district of Wyoming. And its uninhabited; nobody lives there, or may live there, because it's a National Park.

- So it's impossible to empanel a qualified jury.

- So you can't be tried.

Does the district cover any inhabited part the SC said anywhere from the District.

lifeandtimes

So they are pretty much putting their head in the sand and it won't be sorted until someone actually kills someine there and goes the whole hog through the court system.

I'll say one thing for our government when they accidentally legalised amphetamines they closed that loophole quite sharpish. This has been brought to the US government's attention enough times and they still havent sorted it

Really Interested

GM228 wrote: »

For anyone interested here is Brian Kalt's original paper on the subject, the The Perfect Crime from 2005.

It does not seem to be well documented but his 2008 follow up paper Tabloid Constitutionalism: How a Bill Doesn't Become a Law is more interesting as it further deals with the issue and the Michael Belderrain case which dealt with the theory.

I apologies for the long quote but it's well worth the read.



I'll note an important point Kalt states:-



So, a further development in the Michael Belderrain case came after the above paper was released and in 2009 he went to jail for 4 years which was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/90ca48ae7070023ccfa9980810a0882e?query=Michael%20Belderrain

Brian proves the old adage there are those who teach and those who do.

seamus

GM228 wrote: »

Whilst not as dramatic, due to a "legal loophole" you can't be prosecuted for a number of parking offences in the Phoenix Park such as parking on double yellow lines or parking within 5 metres of a junction etc (the more serious charge of dangerous parking could apply though).

It's not really a loophole to be fair. The Phoenix Park is legally private property under the ownership of the OPW.

That means that only a subset of the rules of the road apply in the park - any rules that apply to a "public place", apply in the park. This includes things like the obligation to be insured, taxed, etc.
Other rules (such as parking rules) do not apply in the park, in exactly the same way that they don't apply in private housing estates.

One difference in the Phoenix Park is that the OPW is entitled to create and prosecute bye-laws of their own in terms of traffic control. So while the Gardai may not enforce parking rules, the Park Rangers can, and can bring you to court. That's a power that a private housing estate doesn't have.

Victor

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1925/act/31/enacted/en/html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1926/sro/6/made/en/print
http://www.phoenixpark.ie/about/phoenixparkbyelaws/

seamus wrote: »

Other rules (such as parking rules) do not apply in the park, in exactly the same way that they don't apply in private housing estates.

Certain things are covered, e.g. speed limit. They can also insist you leave and never come back.

One difference in the Phoenix Park is that the OPW is entitled to create and prosecute bye-laws of their own in terms of traffic control. So while the Gardai may not enforce parking rules, the Park Rangers can, and can bring you to court.

I don't know about OPW properties, but many modern acts, bye-laws, etc. enable gardaí to prosecute under the bye-laws, as if they were a park constable, authorised officer, etc.

GM228

seamus wrote: »

It's not really a loophole to be fair. The Phoenix Park is legally private property under the ownership of the OPW.

That means that only a subset of the rules of the road apply in the park - any rules that apply to a "public place", apply in the park. This includes things like the obligation to be insured, taxed, etc.

Other rules (such as parking rules) do not apply in the park, in exactly the same way that they don't apply in private housing estates.

Spot on, perhaps not a loophole in the strictest sense - however the Phoenix Park is unique in that yes it's a public place, however it isn't private property, it's public property owned by the state with a roadway system. The key is that the roads are maintained by the OPW as opposed to a roads authority which is the qualifying condition required for many rules of the road which apply to "public roads", hence the loophole as I call it.

seamus wrote: »

IOne difference in the Phoenix Park is that the OPW is entitled to create and prosecute bye-laws of their own in terms of traffic control. So while the Gardai may not enforce parking rules, the Park Rangers can, and can bring you to court. That's a power that a private housing estate doesn't have.

Indeed they are, but they have only set a no parking rule on the grass and a 50 km/h speed limit which can't be enforced.

Victor wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1925/act/31/enacted/en/html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1926/sro/6/made/en/print
http://www.phoenixpark.ie/about/phoenixparkbyelaws/

Certain things are covered, e.g. speed limit. They can also insist you leave and never come back.

How do they enforce the speed limit? Legally they can't - they don't have the power to and neither can the Gardaí.

Victor wrote: »

I don't know about OPW properties, but many modern acts, bye-laws, etc. enable gardaí to prosecute under the bye-laws, as if they were a park constable, authorised officer, etc.

The Gardaí have no powers to prosecute under the Phoenix Park Act, they can perform their duties in the park and prosecute under other acts which may be applicable to public places such as certain road traffic, public order etc matters.

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

Spot on, perhaps not a loophole in the strictest sense - however the Phoenix Park is unique in that yes it's a public place, however it isn't private property, it's public property owned by the state with a roadway system.

It is private property, owned by the state.

GM228

Victor wrote: »

It is private property, owned by the state.

No, private property is property owned by a person (natural or legal), not the state.

State owned property is owned by, well, the state - that being the people, it is owned collectively by the population of the state and therefore public property.