Playing football on the road.

NUTLEY BOY

Since Pontius was a pilot we were told that you cannot play football on the public road.

Is there a legal foundation for this proposition or is it an urban myth ?

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Since Pontius was a pilot we were told that you cannot play football on the public road.

Is there a legal foundation for this proposition or is it an urban myth ?

It is true, but subject to being "to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers".

See S14 (17) of the Dublin Police Act 1842 (which is still in force):-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1842/act/24/section/14/enacted/en/index.html

14. Every person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings who, within the limits of the police district, shall in any thoroughfare or public place commit any of the following offences; (that is to say,)

<SNIP>

17. Every person who shall fly any kite or play at any game, to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, or who shall make or use any slide upon ice or snow in any street or other thoroughfare, to the common danger of the passengers

It's application in todays world is questionable, also bear in mind as a result of the Childrens Act 2001 a child under the age of 12 bears no criminal responsibility so they can play away.

A 40s penalty would be a €2.53 penalty today

Peregrinus

Does it apply outside Dublin?

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Does it apply outside Dublin?

No, I forgot to mention this point, the Summary Jurisdiction Act (Ireland) Act 1851 applied a similar restriction to the rest of the country under S10 (2) as follows:-

10. Any person who shall commit any of the next following offences shall be liable to the punishment herein-after specified in each case:

2. Any person who shall fly any kite or play at any game, or make or use any slide upon ice or snow, on any public road or in any street of a town, to the danger of the passengers; or who shall cast or throw any fireworks or discharge any firearms on any public road, or within sixty feet of the centre thereof, or in any street or passage of a town, or who shall cast, throw, or discharge the same, or suffer the same to be cast, thrown, or discharged, from out of his house, shop, dwelling, lodging, or habitation, or from out of any place thereto belonging, into any public road, street, or passage, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten shillings

Whilst the 1851 Act is also still in force, S10 (2) was repealed in 1993.

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

It is true, but subject to being "to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers".

Do we take this to mean that annoying the police only is insufficient?

It's application in todays world is questionable

the act has been used in recent years, including outside Dublin, to the detriment of the prosecuting garda.

A 40s penalty would be a €2.53 penalty today

Hasn't the Fines Act indexed this substantially?

GM228

Victor wrote: »

Do we take this to mean that annoying the police only is insufficient?

They could be passengers though and satisfy the requirement.

Victor wrote: »

the act has been used in recent years, including outside Dublin, tot he detriment of the prosecuting garda.

The Act is only applicable to the DMA. I'm not sure what your referring to in bold, a case of the wrong statute applied?

Victor wrote: »

Hasn't the Fines Act indexed this substantially?

I don't believe so.

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

a case of the wrong statute applied?

Yes.

GM228 wrote: »

I'm not sure what your referring to in bold,

Garda got slagged.

meathstevie

GM228 wrote: »

It is true, but subject to being "to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers".

See S14 (17) of the Dublin Police Act 1842 (which is still in force):-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1842/act/24/section/14/enacted/en/index.html



It's application in todays world is questionable, also bear in mind as a result of the Childrens Act 2001 a child under the age of 12 bears no criminal responsibility so they can play away.

A 40s penalty would be a €2.53 penalty today

The prohibition is conditional to the activity causing annoyance. No annoyance, no offence.
Also, there are geographical limitations mentioning the "Police district" so it didn't have any standing in all the RIC policed areas outside the then DMP jurisdiction. The DMP boundary as far as I recollect correctly is substantially smaller than the current Garda DMR.

It's correct to state that the age of criminal responsibility nowadays is 12 but that doesn't mean that law enforcement can't intervene and stop the offending behaviour. It only means that a suspect under 12 years of age can't be prosecuted.

NIMAN

And we wonder why we aren't producing footballers any more?

Peregrinus

NIMAN wrote: »

And we wonder why we aren't producing footballers any more?

The ban was introduced in Dublin in 1842 and in the rest of the country in 1851. Then it was abolished in Dublin in 1993. Are you suggesting that abolishing the ban has led to a decline in the quality of footballers?

corks finest

NIMAN wrote: »

And we wonder why we aren't producing footballers any more?

That's what football clubs are for,,try living in a dead end where'it was going night and day for the guts of 8 years,cars ,windows ,walls,and gates being lashed,and a perfect green area 30 metres away,,,, stopped now tnk God,,,p.s. I'm a paren't/ grand parent of current club playing child,and grandkids

dr.fuzzenstein

GM228 wrote: »

It is true, but subject to being "to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers".

See S14 (17) of the Dublin Police Act 1842 (which is still in force):-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1842/act/24/section/14/enacted/en/index.html

This is a great piece of legislation. Does it mention comely maidens dancing at the crossroads?

GM228

meathstevie wrote: »

The prohibition is conditional to the activity causing annoyance. No annoyance, no offence.
Also, there are geographical limitations mentioning the "Police district" so it didn't have any standing in all the RIC policed areas outside the then DMP jurisdiction. The DMP boundary as far as I recollect correctly is substantially smaller than the current Garda DMR.

Indeed, as I already mentioned.

The Act originally applied to the DM (Dublin Metropolis) area and currently applies to the DMA (Dublin Metropolitan Area), not the DMD (Dublin Metropolitan District) or DMR (Dublin Metropolitan Region) which has different boundaries.

The DMA grew larger over the years and it's current boundaries have not changed since 1927, whilst the DMD dates from 1945 and has enlarged over the years, the DMR is based on the DMD.

meathstevie wrote: »

It's correct to state that the age of criminal responsibility nowadays is 12 but that doesn't mean that law enforcement can't intervene and stop the offending behaviour. It only means that a suspect under 12 years of age can't be prosecuted.

Well all they can do is arrest or issue a fine which won't happen with a child, otherwise they have no power to intervene.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

The ban was introduced in Dublin in 1842 and in the rest of the country in 1851. Then it was abolished in Dublin in 1993. Are you suggesting that abolishing the ban has led to a decline in the quality of footballers?

It was abolished everywhere but Dublin.

meathstevie

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, as I already mentioned.

The Act originally applied to the DM (Dublin Metropolis) area and currently applies to the DMA (Dublin Metropolitan Area), not the DMD (Dublin Metropolitan District) or DMR (Dublin Metropolitan Region) which has different boundaries.

The DMA grew larger over the years and it's current boundaries have not changed since 1927, whilst the DMD dates from 1945 and has enlarged over the years, the DMR is based on the DMD.





Well all they can do is arrest or issue a fine which won't happen with a child, otherwise they have no power to intervene.

Can't issue a fine because that's essentially an out of court settlement with the suspect accepting guilt. What can be done is more of a supervisory nature like returning the child to the parents or in more serious cases involve the likes of Tusla (good luck with that shower) and ultimately seek compulsory care orders.

Peregrinus

meathstevie wrote: »

Can't issue a fine because that's essentially an out of court settlement with the suspect accepting guilt. What can be done is more of a supervisory nature like returning the child to the parents or in more serious cases involve the likes of Tusla (good luck with that shower) and ultimately seek compulsory care orders.

To obtain a care order Tusla needs to show that the child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or that his health, development or welfare is being avoidably impaired or neglected or that it is likely to be, and (in any of those cases) that the child requires care that he is unlikely to get unless a care order is made.

"He plays football in the street" is not going to cut it.

Tl;dr: no matter how annoyed people may get at kids playing football in the street, this is not a child protection issue.

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

To obtain a care order Tusla needs to show that the child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or that his health, development or welfare is being avoidably impaired or neglected or that it is likely to be, and (in any of those cases) that the child requires care that he is unlikely to get unless a care order is made.

"He plays football in the street" is not going to cut it.

Tl;dr: no matter how annoyed people may get at kids playing football in the street, this is not a child protection issue.

Could you argue that allowing a child to play on a road is neglect?

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

Could you argue that allowing a child to play on a road is neglect?

Well, you could argue it, but it's not a very good argument, is it?

Obviously, if he's playing chicken with freight trucks on a major traffic artery that's highly dangerous, but if he's playing football with other kids on a quiet suburban street, that's not especially dangerous. And there are social and developmental benefits to kids playing and socialising outside the family, with neighbouring kids. Plus there are community benefits; areas where kids play outside their own homes/gardens have lower rates of housebreaking and street crime.

So, if you think that kids playing ball in the street is dangerous to the kids, your first reaction should not be to control the kids, but to control the traffic which makes it dangerous for them. Lower speed limits, traffic calming measures, that kind of thing.

Kevin3

GM228 wrote: »

Quote: Victor
Hasn't the Fines Act indexed this substantially?



I don't believe so.

The Fines Act 2010 has effect on and amends all monetary fines past and present. In this case the fine is now amended to a class E fine (a fine not exceeding €500), the lowest fine range the district court can now implement.

NUTLEY BOY

Del2005 wrote: »

Could you argue that allowing a child to play on a road is neglect?

You might make out an arguable case that it is a negligent act as distinct from child neglect.

Much would depend on the facts. If the facts suggest a breach of the duty of care as envisaged by the tort of negligence there might be a liability.

Also, consider the case of a motorist who whilst driving negligently knocks down one of the street footballers. There might be an argument there to join a negligent parent to any proceedings as a third party.