Asked by garda to move on

Sassygirl1999

I'm walkng past/outside a concert near a medical tent, I'm interested to know who is performing, I stop a short while to ask one of the staff at one of the tents 'who's playing', before they can answer a garda makes a b-line in my direction asks me whether am I waiting on someone, I say no, he tells me to move on, I do...but I'm wondering at what stage of the 'move on' instruction I break the law if I don't move on, is it an outright refusal that's the crunch point or ignoring his instruction of is a slow movement in no particular direction enough .....

Victor

Potentially important would be (a) public place or not, (b) how many people you were with, (c) time of day and (d) were you intoxicated.

Sassygirl1999

Victor wrote: »

Potentially important would be (a) public place or not, (b) how many people you were with, (c) time of day and (d) were you intoxicated.

public place - yes
Number of people- two
Time - 8pm still bright
Intoxicated - no

splinter65

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

I'm walkng past/outside a concert near a medical tent, I'm interested to know who is performing, I stop a short while to ask one of the staff at one of the tents 'who's playing', before they can answer a garda makes a b-line in my direction asks me whether am I waiting on someone, I say no, he tells me to move on, I do...but I'm wondering at what stage of the 'move on' instruction I break the law if I don't move on, is it an outright refusal that's the crunch point or ignoring his instruction of is a slow movement in no particular direction enough .....

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/8/enacted/en/html

Was there a large crowd in the immediate vicinity at the time? Were you possibly interfering not intentionally with accessibility to the entrance of the tent? Might you have appeared to be acting aggressively to the staff you spoke too? Inebriated individuals at these functions get brought to the first aid tent and then their equally inebriated “friends” demand to be allowed in to see them...

Sassygirl1999

splinter65 wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/8/enacted/en/html

Was there a large crowd in the immediate vicinity at the time? Were you possibly interfering not intentionally with accessibility to the entrance of the tent? Might you have appeared to be acting aggressively to the staff you spoke too? Inebriated individuals at these functions get brought to the first aid tent and then their equally inebriated “friends” demand to be allowed in to see them...

the concert inside was the only large crowd, not within eye shot
no one except an empty tent with staff waiting for possible casualties
Chatting to a medic cordially about who was playing inside
It was a young persons type of music festival possibly rap music
No aggression
No alcohol involved
Angry police

mickdw

I'd just follow instruction.
Cops have enough on their plate nowadays at large gatherings considering terror events etc that they are well within their rights to keep areas clear and avoid random people hanging around outside.

Zulu

There are potentially people inside requiring medical assistance. They deserve as much privacy as can be afforded. They do not deserve rubber-kneckers (not say you were one, but you may have appeared that way) loitering around.

Move on.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Zulu wrote: »

There are potentially people inside requiring medical assistance. They deserve as much privacy as can be afforded. They do not deserve rubber-kneckers (not say you were one, but you may have appeared that way) loitering around.

Move on.

Empty tent, chatting to the medical staff, Mod deletion. Offensive comment, Garda was doing his duty. Pls do not post again on this thread

Noodle Scratcher

It’s still not nice to be asked to move on by a Guard when you’ve done nothing wrong. Some guards could be a bit more diplomatic in these situations. It’s not a police state.

Zulu

Kaleb Full Cucumber wrote: »

Empty tent, chatting to the medical staff, seems like the Garda just felt like being a pr!ck.

The tent may well have been empty, but perhaps the Garda didn't know that. His default is probably "keep medical tent clear for people who need help".

7aubzxk43m2sni

Zulu wrote: »

The tent may well have been empty, but perhaps the Garda didn't know that. His default is probably "keep medical tent clear for people who need help".

Fair point.

unattendedbag

He asked you to move and you did. It's really as simple as that. No laws came into force. If you refused to then maybe he can direct you to leave the area and also has to outline the penalties for refusing to do so. (section 8 public order act).its only then if you still refuse to leave that you commit an offence and can be arrested.

On a side note, after the Manchester bombings, the event organizers and Gardai are very vigilant on hangers around the exit of venues. They don't want to take chances.

Sassygirl1999

unattendedbag wrote: »

He asked you to move and you did. It's really as simple as that. No laws came into force. If you refused to then maybe he can direct you to leave the area and also has to outline the penalties for refusing to do so. (section 8 public order act).its only then if you still refuse to leave that you commit an offence and can be arrested.

On a side note, after the Manchester bombings, the event organizers and Gardai are very vigilant on hangers around the exit of venues. They don't want to take chances.

on a side note this was prior to the Manchester bombings but the memory is vivid as yesterday
He didn't ask he directed

Del2005

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

on a side note this was prior to the Manchester bombings but the memory is vivid as yesterday
He didn't ask he directed

It's outside a venue where you can hear the music. I'd say that he'd moved loads of people trying to listen to the concert by the time you stopped so his politeness level may have ran out.

s7ryf3925pivug

My understanding is that if a guard tells you to move on in a public place, and you don't, they can arrest you under the public order act 1994.

Lmklad

Amara Hallowed Goatherd wrote: »

My understanding is that if a guard tells you to move on in a public place, and you don't, they can arrest you under the public order act 1994.

Sec 8 Public Order Act (moving on) only kicks in if you’ve committed an offence under that act (sections 4 5 6 7). Sec 8 can’t be invoked unless one of the other sections is breached.

OP I would suggest that the guard had no legal power to move you, a moral one maybe (in keeping the medic tent clear) but they usually don’t ask without a reason.

Olsky

Similar has happened to me a few times over the years. Ordered to move on in public place by Garda on a power trip. No practical justification for it. Last happened about a year ago. Was sitting on a low wall on a public street waiting for a friend. I've always wondered what the consequences would be if I said no. Would Garda be entitled to arrest me under Public order act?
OP is wondering same thing.

Peregrinus

LMKlad is correct, or nearly so. For a guard to give you a move-on direction under s. 8 you don't need to have breached one of the other sections of the Act; he just has to suspect, with reasonable cause, that you have done so.

The other sections deal with:

- intoxication in a public place (s. 4)
- disorderly conduct in a public place (s. 5)
- threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place (s. 6)
- distribution or display of threatening, abusive, insulting, obscene material in a public place (s. 7)
- wilfully obstructing free passage of person or vehicle in a public place (s. 9)

A guard can also give you a move-on direction if he suspects, with reasonable cause, that you are loitering in a public place in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons, safety of property or maintenance of the public peace.

(The general idea is to give the guards a tool for defusing a situation that falls short of arrest. A high proportion of, um, tense encounters can be avoided or resolved simply by getting someone to leave the area.)

Doesn't sound from the OP as though they fitted any of those circumstances, unless possibly standing in the door of the first aid tent was considered to be obstruction, which is a bit of a stretch. So I would say that this was a non-statutory direction with which the OP did not have to comply.

Be aware, though, that if a guard thinks you're being a knobhead, most of them are pretty skilled at escalating a situation to a point where a public order offence can reasonably be apprehended. So if you find yourself in a situation like this and you don't want to do as the guard asks the trick is to stay calm, polite, reasonable, etc, and on no account to react to what might seem to you like a bad attitude on the guard's part.

Olsky

How subjective though is "reasonable apprehension" . Can you be arrested for looking crooked at a gaurd if you refuse direction to move on. Last time it happened to me I was not in breach of any of the sections under any reasonable assessment.
Was very tempted to say no but decided it was not worth the risk.

Wanderer78

Olsky wrote:

How subjective though and is "reasonable apprehension" . Can you be arrested for looking crooked at a gaurd if you refuse direction to move on. Last time it happened to me I was not in breach of any of the sections under any reasonable assessment

The legal system is filled with subjectiveness, for something that is printed in black and white, it certainly isn't in meaning

Peregrinus

Olsky wrote: »

How subjective though and is "reasonable apprehension" . Can you be arrested for looking crooked at a gaurd if you refuse direction to move on. Last time it happened to me I was not in breach of any of the sections under any reasonable assessment

Once he has given you the direction, failing to comply is an offence and you can be arrested. When the matter gets to court you can argue that the direction was not lawfully given. The question will then come back to whether the guard had "reasonable cause" for his suspicions. This will be a matter of evidence.

"Reasonable" implies an objective standard; it's not enough that the guard's suspicions were genuine or sincere; they must have been based on something which the hypothetical reasonable man (meaning, in practice, the district judge who hears the charge) would agree is a sound basis for suspicion.

Context and circumstances are always relevant. The fact that you didn't obey the direction and the way in which that played out isn't directly relevant, but it does cast a certain light on the guard's evidence about how you were behaving before the direction was given. And if you were there with others, their behaviour and their response to the guard are also relevant.

Tigger

Amara Hallowed Goatherd wrote: »

My understanding is that if a guard tells you to move on in a public place, and you don't, they can arrest you under the public order act 1994.

Yeah they say “ I’m making a requirement on you under the 1994 public order act to move on “ or similar
Seen it as a bouncer loads of times
Maybe it’s just something they say but sometimes people that don’t get put in a van

Olsky

So the guard could have arrested me if I said no. And if it got to court the guard could have said something like that he formed the opinion that I was intoxicated because he felt I was swaying and if danger of falling over. (It was the middle of the day. I wasn't) or that my refusal to move on was threatenung behavior

Tigger

Olsky wrote: »

So the guard could have arrested me if I said no. And if it got to court the guard could have said something like that he formed the opinion that I was intoxicated because he felt I was swaying and if danger of falling over. (It was the middle of the day. I wasn't) or that my refusal to move on was threatenung behavior

Or under the being in the way bit
You don’t want to be explaining to a judge that you wern’t in the way but you were not prepared to move on when instructed.

Peregrinus

Olsky wrote: »

So the guard could have arrested me if I said no. And if it got to court the guard could have said something like that he formed the opinion that I was intoxicated because he felt I was swaying and if danger of falling over . . .

Yes.

Of course, if you feel like fighting the charge, you can call as witnesses the people in the first aid tent, who know from long experience what intoxication looks like and who can testify that you did not appear intoxicated.

Olsky wrote: »

. . . or that my refusal to move on was threatenung behavior

Not that. He can't justify issuing the direction by pointing to something that only happened after he issued the direction.

Wanderer78

Tigger wrote:

Or under the being in the way bit You don’t want to be explaining to a judge that you wern’t in the way but you were not prepared to move on when instructed.

Why wouldn't one want to be explaining themselves to a judge?

Tigger

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Why wouldn't one want to be explaining themselves to a judge?

?
I can think of many many more satisfying ways of spending a day than in court fighting a public order charge . Do you think it’s fun to be in court?

Wanderer78

Tigger wrote:

? I can think of many many more satisfying ways of spending a day than in court fighting a public order charge . Do you think it’s fun to be in court?

Fun is probably the wrong choice of word, but I have found it extremely interesting, a journalist friend of mine spends a lot of his time in court, and has said similar things, unfortunately it's where a lot of our complex social problems end up, producing dreadful consequences and results

Sassygirl1999

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Fun is probably the wrong choice of word, but I have found it extremely interesting, a journalist friend of mine spends a lot of his time in court, and has said similar things, unfortunately it's where a lot of our complex social problems end up, producing dreadful consequences and results

I probably could have won in court against this Garda straight out of templemore but lets say I didn't like the look of that rabbit hole

Mod amendment
Be polite. pls

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Doesn't sound from the OP as though they fitted any of those circumstances, unless possibly standing in the door of the first aid tent was considered to be obstruction, which is a bit of a stretch. So I would say that this was a non-statutory direction with which the OP did not have to comply

Must look into it a bit more, but I'm pretty certain my brother mentioned to me in the past about a rarely used power they have to direct those "wandering in open air" under one of the Vagrancy Acts.

Disclaimer: I may be wrong as, unlike most other Garda powers, it's not a specific power I have previously researched myself (yet).

source

Section 21 (2) (b) Public Order Act 1994

21.—(1) If it appears to a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent that it is necessary in the interests of safety or for the purpose of preserving order to restrict the access of persons to a place where an event is taking or is about to take place which attracts, or is likely to attract, a large assembly of persons (in this Part referred to as the “event”), he may authorise any member of the Garda Síochána to erect or cause to be erected a barrier or a series of barriers on any road, street, lane, alley or other means of access to such a place in a position not more than one mile therefrom for the purpose of regulating the access of persons or vehicles thereto.

(2) Where a barrier has been erected in accordance with subsection (1), a member of the Garda Síochána in uniform may by oral or manual direction or by the exhibition of any notice or sign, or any combination thereof—

(a) divert persons generally or particularly and whether in or on vehicles or on foot to another means of access to the event, including a means of access to that event on foot only, or

(b) where possession of a ticket is required for entrance to the event, prohibit a person whether in or on vehicles or on foot from crossing or passing the barrier towards the event where the person has no such ticket, or

(c) indicate that to proceed beyond the barrier while in possession of any intoxicating liquor, disposable drinks container or offensive article will render such liquor, container or article liable to confiscation.

(3) A member of the Garda Síochána shall not prohibit a person from crossing or passing a barrier erected under this section save for the purpose of diverting the person to another means of access to the event, if it appears to the member that the person is seeking to do so for the purpose only of—

(a) going to his dwelling or place of business or work in the vicinity of the event, or

(b) going for any other lawful purpose to any place in the vicinity of the event other than the place where the event is taking place or is about to take place.

(4) A person who—

(a) fails to obey a direction given by a member of the Garda Síochána under subsection (2) for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) thereof, or

(b) fails to comply with the terms of a notice or sign exhibited under subsection (2) for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) thereof,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.

evolving_doors

Tigger wrote: »

?
I can think of many many more satisfying ways of spending a day than in court fighting a public order charge . Do you think it’s fun to be in court?

If I'd nothing to loose (I.e. wouldn't care about a criminal record, had no dependant family, financially secure) I'd like to see what view the judge would take.
Rewinding a bit. I'd stay calm and keep asking under what grounds I'm being asked to move on. I wouldn't accept the section 8 primary reason and politely tell the guard that if he thinks this is worthy of the courts time then let's go there.
I'd also be discretely filming it and put it on YouTube after being charged.

Lmklad

source wrote: »

Section 21 (2) (b) Public Order

This is for controlling access to an event. Not moving around inside the event.

source

Lmklad wrote: »

This is for controlling access to an event. Not moving around inside the event.

Op wasn't in the event, op stopped when passing to ask the people in the medical tent who was playing.

Lmklad

source wrote: »

Lmklad wrote: »

This is for controlling access to an event. Not moving around inside the event.

Op wasn't in the event, op stopped when passing to ask the people in the medical tent who was playing.

Correct but he made no mention of crossing a barrier.

Sassygirl1999

source wrote: »

Op wasn't in the event, op stopped when passing to ask the people in the medical tent who was playing.

we crossed no barrier as it was an on street event,the event itself was behind a barrier/gate in blanchardstown shopping centre but the tent was on the side walk

ED E

In the last few months I've seen a junior member (Traffic Sergeant) pull the Section 8 move, be ignored as the instructee was aware of the statute and then drop the issue and leave. I suspect they use it regularly as most won't question it.

splinter65

I’m in a minority here but I would automatically assume that I was being asked to move along in the interest of my own safety.
I also associate the “straight out of Templemore “ barb as evidence of having a chip on ones shoulder.

source

Lmklad wrote: »

Correct but he made no mention of crossing a barrier.

Barrier can be erected up to 1 mile from the event under subsection 1, op could well have been inside the barrier without even realising they were inside it.

DwightSchrute1

ED E wrote: »

In the last few months I've seen a junior member (Traffic Sergeant) pull the Section 8 move, be ignored as the instructee was aware of the statute and then drop the issue and leave. I suspect they use it regularly as most won't question it.

A junior member who is a Traffic Sergeant, that has to be a paradox.

evolving_doors

source wrote: »

Barrier can be erected up to 1 mile from the event under subsection 1, op could well have been inside the barrier without even realising they were inside it.

At an event your probably always 1 mile from any barrier.

Sassygirl1999

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m in a minority here but I would automatically assume that I was being asked to move along in the interest of my own safety.
I also associate the “straight out of Templemore “ barb as evidence of having a chip on ones shoulder.

please explain your reasons for this 'chip on ones shoulder' barb/insult about me, there was two of us there and both were feeling the same way
On another one of my threads you spoke about your neighbour like this :

"His mother ( landed gentry) marched down to the barracks the "

I think you sir have a chip on your shoulder about your neighbors and other innocent civilians

Shefwedfan

You didn’t have ticket for event, so should not be at event

Security is difficult enough without people hanging around outside....no idea of size of event but even if you are not drunk the staff might have a couple of hundred drunk people to monitor

It’s a simple request from the Garda....

I don’t see the problem

holystungun9

OP, have you found any resolution or validation in any of the posts so far? I hope this thread comes to some conclusion before reaching 10 pages.

Sassygirl1999

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You didn’t have ticket for event, so should not be at event

Security is difficult enough without people hanging around outside....no idea of size of event but even if you are not drunk the staff might have a couple of hundred drunk people to monitor

It’s a simple request from the Garda....

I don’t see the problem

ok you move along then your time here on this thread is finished

Shefwedfan

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

ok you move along then your time here on this thread is finished

Haha

Based on your attitude the Garda was 100% right

juneg

Wish they'd move on the gangs of teenagers blocking footpaths and intimidating people in their own areas.

greenspurs

mickdw wrote: »

I'd just follow instruction.
Cops have enough on their plate nowadays at large gatherings considering terror events etc that they are well within their rights to keep areas clear and avoid random people hanging around outside.

Really ??
In Ireland ...???

Media frenzy much ?? :rolleyes:

Shefwedfan

greenspurs wrote: »

Really ??
In Ireland ...???

Media frenzy much ?? :rolleyes:

Due to the terror attacks they have to check bags etc more than ever....

Are you really confused about that?

Sassygirl1999

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Haha

Based on your attitude the Garda was 100% right

u are creating a nuisance now

Sassygirl1999

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Due to the terror attacks they have to check bags etc more than ever....

Are you really confused about that?

ireland hasn't had a terror attacks since the IRA