Police property act

skulluser

While it does allow gardai to hold your property until the investigation comes to an end
for within a reasonable time

Shouldn't there be an actual limit? Any such wording could be used to effectively to not get back any items for years, while I heard of cases that judges usually give back items within 6 months using the application there are some other cases that a judge didn't give the items for 2 years.

This is just a discussion no legal advice needed

Personally I think it's pretty sad we are using an act from British times when Ireland was occupied along with the fact we aren't keeping up with modern times and just using vague wording.

Samuel T. Cogley

We frequently lift English legislation even now.

It needs to be vague - now more than ever - it can take years to properly examine electronics such is (or was) the backlog.

Carawaystick

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

We frequently lift English legislation even now.

It needs to be vague - now more than ever - it can take years to properly examine electronics such is (or was) the backlog.

Thats not an argument for vagueness, that's an argument for more resources to examine electronics in a timely manner.

Peregrinus

The wording isn't vague; it's flexible.

How long they need to hold on to your property will depend on the circumstances. It's not just a matter of how long they take to examine it; they might examine it very quickly and come to the conclusion that it will be necessary evidence in a criminal trial, in which case it's reasonable to hold onto it until the trial process has concluded. And while a lot of factors can influence the time take to conclude criminal proceedings, a desire to get your property back to you is not going to be very high on the list.

So a fixed time limit within which property must be returned wouldn't work; it would just lead to criminal trials being aborted because the evidence can't be retained.

Victor

skulluser wrote: »

Personally I think it's pretty sad we are using an act from British times when Ireland was occupied along with the fact we aren't keeping up with modern times and just using vague wording.

Don't judge a law based on who made it or when it was made, but whether it is good law or not.

Carawaystick

Peregrinus wrote: »

The wording isn't vague; it's flexible.

How long they need to hold on to your property will depend on the circumstances. It's not just a matter of how long they take to examine it; they might examine it very quickly and come to the conclusion that it will be necessary evidence in a criminal trial, in which case it's reasonable to hold onto it until the trial process has concluded.

At which stage they should start paying a "rent" for the use of your private property plus a depriciation payment as your technologies value plummets

Peregrinus wrote: »

So a fixed time limit within which property must be returned wouldn't work; it would just lead to criminal trials being aborted because the evidence can't be retained.

And yet we have fixed time limits within which the gards must comclude their evidence giving. It's hardly an onerous burden to make gards get an image of the data on a phone within 6 hours of the request being made to the owner of the phone and her agreement?

Peregrinus

Carawaystick wrote: »

At which stage they should start paying a "rent" for the use of your private property plus a depriciation payment as your technologies value plummets

The right to private property may be limited by the requirements of the common good.

Carawaystick wrote: »

And yet we have fixed time limits within which the gards must comclude their evidence giving. It's hardly an onerous burden to make gards get an image of the data on a phone within 6 hours of the request being made to the owner of the phone and her agreement?

That would deprive the accused of his or her right to examine or challenge the evidence. Are they supposed just to take the guards' word for it that this is the data that was on the phone?

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

At which stage they should start paying a "rent" for the use of your private property plus a depriciation payment as your technologies value plummets

Whatever about being paid for one, it's another matter to be paid for both.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The right to private property may be limited by the requirements of the common good.

But should crime victims be doubly punished?

That would deprive the accused of his or her right to examine or challenge the evidence.

Is there a procedure to do this pre-trial, in the same way as autopsies - the authorities don't hang on to the body until the trial (although they may restrict how it is disposed of)?

Peregrinus

I think the evidence has to be available to the defence until they understand exactly what use the prosecution will make of it, and some of that may not emerge until oral evidence is given at the trial.

skulluser

Thanks for the discussion guys

In the case of a computer being taken away for months or years I would assume a bill could be put forward to gain any funds that caused was by depreciation?

Also if we are lifting up laws from the UK to make it better for any victims why didn't Ireland implement the UK's Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) or something similar

Which would allow for objects to be copied and given back?

Such as in a case of a PC where the gardai would mirror the hard drive and hand it back in around a few weeks instead of months or years.

brian_t

skulluser wrote: »

Which would allow for objects to be copied and given back?

Such as in a case of a PC where the gardai would mirror the hard drive and hand it back in around a few weeks instead of months or years.

What if the Guards suspect there are illegal images on the computer.

4ensic15

skulluser wrote: »

Such as in a case of a PC where the gardai would mirror the hard drive and hand it back in around a few weeks instead of months or years.

The mirrored drive would not be evidence. What the guards do is mirror the drive and leave the original alone. They then trawl the mirror for evidence. The accused is entitled to demand access to the original to check it. If it wasn't available, they could claim that the mirror drive was a full or partial fabrication.

Victor

In the case of a hard drive, surely they could copy the original and give the copy to the owner (assuming having the data alone wasn't an offence)?

ohnonotgmail

Victor wrote: »

In the case of a hard drive, surely they could copy the original and give the copy to the owner (assuming having the data alone wasn't an offence)?

the post immediately above yours answers that.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the post immediately above yours answers that.

No, it doesn't. The owner doesn't need admissible evidence; he just needs the data from his hard drive.

4ensic15

Victor wrote: »

In the case of a hard drive, surely they could copy the original and give the copy to the owner (assuming having the data alone wasn't an offence)?

The guards have to prove their case. The original hard drive is the evidence. If it was given to the owner, the owner could destroy it and claim the evidence produced was a partial or total fabrication. Ultimately the matter can be resolved by producing the original, giving evidence of its acquisition and preservation and displaying its contents.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

The guards have to prove their case. The original hard drive is the evidence. If it was given to the owner, the owner could destroy it and claim the evidence produced was a partial or total fabrication. Ultimately the matter can be resolved by producing the original, giving evidence of its acquisition and preservation and displaying its contents.

But Victor's suggestion is that the guards should retain the original, and give a copy to the owner.

Note that the owner, in Victor's scenario, is not the defendant; he's just somebody whose property has been taken for use as evidence in a court case, and who is inconvenienced or disadvantaged by this. Even if the hard drive were returned to him, he would have no reason to destroy it or to make claims impugning the evidence produced at the trial by the guards. But in any event the possibility doesn't even arise if he gets the copy, and the guards keep the original.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

But Victor's suggestion is that the guards should retain the original, and give a copy to the owner.

Note that the owner, in Victor's scenario, is not the defendant; he's just somebody whose property has been taken for use as evidence in a court case, and who is inconvenienced or disadvantaged by this. Even if the hard drive were returned to him, he would have no reason to destroy it or to make claims impugning the evidence produced at the trial by the guards. But in any event the possibility doesn't even arise if he gets the copy, and the guards keep the original.

I was assuming the owner was the accused. The owner should have his own backup. there would appear to be a difficulty in principle giving the owner a copy if it didn't prejudice the case. There are of course practical difficulties. The forensics bureau does not have facilities for visitors and the workload of sending drives to and from garda stations would be an overhead the guards could do without.

Victor

4ensic15 wrote: »

The owner should have his own backup.

But the Garda would likely also seize this.