Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Re Reading others' post

  • 02-12-2017 02:44PM
    #1
    ScouseMouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,070 ✭✭✭


    Concerning post and letters to an address.

    Someone told me that once a letter arrives at the correct address, anyone at the address can open and read it.

    This sounds wrong to me as if it's addressed to Mr John Boards, surely only Mr John Boards can open it. This was actually told to me by a retired An Post man.


    What does the law say on this one? I'm sure he must be wrong.

    Thanks all


Comments

  • #2
    EndaHonesty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭EndaHonesty


    It's an offence to open someone else's mail

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/21/section/53/enacted/en/html


  • #3
    ScouseMouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,070 ✭✭✭ScouseMouse


    I knew it. Wait till I see him again. Thanks ☺️


  • #4
    ...__...
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 507 ✭✭✭...__...


    Just for the exercise what if the letter is already open?

    Its an offence to open the letter but if said letter was opened by a third party or the recipient would it be an offence to read it.
    not in the concept of intercepting the mail but say a private letter was open on the table addressed to mrs murphy
    and said letter said her delivery of 18 inch aids was delayed due to a factory issue lol sorry just wanted to put a little fun back in the forum @)
    would it be an offence to read the letter?


  • #5
    Speedwell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    ...__... wrote: »
    Just for the exercise what if the letter is already open?

    Its an offence to open the letter but if said letter was opened by a third party or the recipient would it be an offence to read it.
    not in the concept of intercepting the mail but say a private letter was open on the table addressed to mrs murphy
    and said letter said her delivery of 18 inch aids was delayed due to a factory issue lol sorry just wanted to put a little fun back in the forum @)
    would it be an offence to read the letter?

    That would fall under impermissible "disclosure of contents", even if only to yourself. Assuming that Mrs. Murphy did in fact receive and read the letter herself without anyone delaying it. If you read it and that results in some sort of interference with Mrs. Murphy receiving it herself, that would fall under other bits.

    If you were Mrs. Murphy's secretary, and you did actually have permission to open and read her mail, it would be a violation of the law as written to delegate the mail-opening task to a co-worker who did not have her permission, or to disclose the contents to them. Fortunately things are a little more subtle than that in most business offices.


  • #6
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    EndaHonesty wrote: »
    It's an offence to open someone else's mail

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/21/section/53/enacted/en/html
    It seems to me that the intent of the legislation is to protect items within the postal service. From this it would follow that the protection would no longer apply once delivery has been effected.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    EndaHonesty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭EndaHonesty


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It seems to me that the intent of the legislation is to protect items within the postal service. From this it would follow that the protection would no longer apply once delivery has been effected.

    It seems to me you are completely misreading the intention of the legislation quoted.

    The act clearly states that it applies to any person who opens mail without the agreement of the addressee.

    The act also clearly states who it doesn't apply to...


  • #8
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    EndaHonesty wrote: »
    It seems to me you are completely misreading the intention of the legislation quoted....
    And it seems to me that I am not.

    The header on the the section reads "Offences in relation to postal services". My interpretation is that when an item is delivered it is no longer governed by law relating to postal services.


  • #9
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,999 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    EndaHonesty wrote: »
    It seems to me you are completely misreading the intention of the legislation quoted.

    The act clearly states that it applies to any person who opens mail without the agreement of the addressee.

    The act also clearly states who it doesn't apply to...

    What is the law however if Mr. Fann Linn works for a Public Body and a private letter is sent from a member of the public for Mr. Fann Linn's attention, but said letter is opened by the internal post service within that Body?


  • #10
    EndaHonesty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭EndaHonesty


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    And it seems to me that I am not.

    The header on the the section reads "Offences in relation to postal services". My interpretation is that when an item is delivered it is no longer governed by law relating to postal services.

    Your interpretation is IMO a wilfully wrong interpretation.


  • #11
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    EndaHonesty wrote: »
    Your interpretation is IMO a wilfully wrong interpretation.
    Wilfully?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    EndaHonesty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭EndaHonesty


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Wilfully?

    The act clearly relates to all people and not just agents of the postal service.

    Your "interpretation" seems like an argumentative stance.


  • #13
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    EndaHonesty wrote: »
    The act clearly relates to all people and not just agents of the postal service.
    So I accept that it is wrong for me to interfere with items in the charge of the postal service. But once an item has been delivered, it is no longer in the charge of the postal service.

    It would be morally wrong of me to open a letter delivered for somebody else, but I don't see much prospect of my being successfully prosecuted for an offence "in relation to the postal service".

    Where would you draw the line? I have envelopes that have been delivered to me more than a month ago, and which I have not opened. They are routine correspondence, and I know what is in them. Are they more protected than other documents in my in-tray?
    Your "interpretation" seems like an argumentative stance.
    Only in the constructive sense of putting views forward in discussion in an effort to arrive at truth. To suggest otherwise is not helpful.


  • #14
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    And it seems to me that I am not.

    The header on the the section reads "Offences in relation to postal services". My interpretation is that when an item is delivered it is no longer governed by law relating to postal services.
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It would be morally wrong of me to open a letter delivered for somebody else, but I don't see much prospect of my being successfully prosecuted for an offence "in relation to the postal service".

    The offence does not actually relate to the postal service though, there is nothing in S53 which relates to the "postal service".

    Headings etc have no meaning in statutes - unless for example there is something obscure or ambiguous in the Act in which case a court may look at such for the purposes of statutory interpretation, however S53 is pretty clear, there is no obscurity in it.


  • #15
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    GM228 wrote: »
    The offence does not actually relate to the postal service though, there is nothing in S53 which relates to the "postal service"....
    At what point does an item cease to be a "postal packet"? In my view, once it has been delivered, it is no longer a postal packet.


  • #16
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    At what point does an item cease to be a "postal packet"? In my view, once it has been delivered, it is no longer a postal packet.

    A postal packet is basically anything with an address on it which is sent via a postal service, just because something is sent via post does not mean it ceases to be a postal packet after it is delivered, no part of the Act suggests a postal packet is only such whilst in the hands of the postal service provider.


  • #17
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,278 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    At what point does an item cease to be a "postal packet"? In my view, once it has been delivered, it is no longer a postal packet.
    "Postal packet" is defined in s.3 of the Act. It means "an item addressed in the final form in which it is to be carried by a postal service provider", and it specifically includes a letter, parcel, packet or any other article transmissible by post.

    I'd say that once the package has been opened, it ceases to be a postal packet - it's no longer in a form in which it might be sent through the post. So if a letter addressed to me comes through the door, I receive it, open it, read it and then leave it lying around, anyone else who finds it and reads it is not committing the s. 53 offence.

    If they find it before I do, and they open it and read it, would that be the s.53 offence? I think you could argue not; the letter has already been carried by the postal service provider, and has been brought to the place to which it is addressed, so it no longer makes sense to talk of is as being addressed in the form "in which it is to be carried". At this point, it's not expected or intended that it will be carried anywhere.


Advertisement