Frederick Street - legal process and basis

dudara

There’s a lot of discussion currently regarding the eviction of the trespassers from frederick St yesterday. I’m not interested in the rights or wrong currently, but I do want to understand the legal steps / process followed here.

As I understand, the property owner had secured a high court judgement against the trespassers, which had been ignored. How then is the eviction managed or carried out in a legal way?

I’ve seen the UK show “Can’t pay, we’ll take it away” where a high court writ is enforced by the agencies who are authorised to do so. Do we have similar here?

Mr. Incognito

If you are in breach of a High Court Order the Guards will remove you

dudara

Thanks. Why or how were private individuals used yesterday, rather than the Gardaí?

the_syco

dudara wrote: »

I’ve seen the UK show “Can’t pay, we’ll take it away” where a high court writ is enforced by the agencies who are authorised to do so. Do we have similar here?

I don't think we have similar agencies here, as they would've been used more often if there was.

It has been claimed that the men were hired by the landlord. As this was an illegal occupation, would a sheriff have been needed?

seamus

dudara wrote: »

Thanks. Why or how were private individuals used yesterday, rather than the Gardaí?

My understanding is that the Gardai will only get involved when a high court order has been ignored.

Then it becomes a de facto contempt of court, and you will be removed by the Gardai and brought to appear before the court.

While you're at court, the landlord will take possession of the property.

That's my understanding of it anyway.

Once the High court order is in place, most people comply. If Gardai are present, they usually make it pretty clear that the occupier can either leave now, or be arrested in a couple of hours. There's no option where they get to continue occupying the property.

It's unpleasant, but private individuals will be hired because they're intimidating and because they're not going to get emotional about it like a landlord might.

johnnyskeleton

People have the right to secure their own property. If I come home this evening and find Reclaim the City protesters wearing my slippers and drinking my tea, I'm perfectly within my rights to remove them from my own property.

If there are a lot of them and they are thuggish and aggressive, or I was the type of genteel little old lady that buys georgian houses and does them up for profit, I would probably enlist the help of a private security company to assist me in doing so.

Eric Cartman

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

People have the right to secure their own property. If I come home this evening and find Reclaim the City protesters wearing my slippers and drinking my tea, I'm perfectly within my rights to remove them from my own property.

If there are a lot of them and they are thuggish and aggressive, or I was the type of genteel little old lady that buys georgian houses and does them up for profit, I would probably enlist the help of a private security company to assist me in doing so.

they claim it was a 'peaceful protest' which definitely means it was thuggish and aggressive.

source

dudara wrote: »

Thanks. Why or how were private individuals used yesterday, rather than the Gardaí?

The Gardaí were used, they were there to take action because of the failure to comply with a court order.

The others were there as the landlord representatives to secure the property.

GM228

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

If you are in breach of a High Court Order the Guards will remove you

seamus wrote: »

My understanding is that the Gardai will only get involved when a high court order has been ignored.

Then it becomes a de facto contempt of court, and you will be removed by the Gardai and brought to appear before the court.

<SNIP>

Once the High court order is in place, most people comply. If Gardai are present, they usually make it pretty clear that the occupier can either leave now, or be arrested in a couple of hours. There's no option where they get to continue occupying the property.

No they won't unless there is a court order for arrest to answer for contempt (failure to comply with a court order does not in itself afford a power of arrest until an order for arrest is issued), the only time Gardaí will remove someone is when assisting a Sheriff/County Registrar in executing a court order or if they are in forcible occupation.

Forcible occupation is defined by the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act 1971 and not all trespassers fall into the definition, the Apollo House occupation is an example of this where Gardaí were powerless to evict.

Eric Cartman

GM228 wrote: »

No they won't unless there is a court order for arrest to answer for contempt, the only time Gardaí will remove someone is when assisting a Sheriff/County Registrar in executing a court order or if they are in forcible occupation.

Forcible occupation is defined by the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act 1971 and not all trespassers fall into the definition, the Apollo House occupation is an example of this where Gardaí were powerless to evict.

We really need to update legislation to ensure swift and forceful evictions can happen in these cases. This is not acceptable

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

No they won't unless there is a court order for arrest to answer for contempt (failure to comply with a court order does not in itself afford a power of arrest until an order for arrest is issued), the only time Gardaí will remove someone is when assisting a Sheriff/County Registrar in executing a court order or if they are in forcible occupation.

Forcible occupation is defined by the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act 1971 and not all trespassers fall into the definition, the Apollo House occupation is an example of this where Gardaí were powerless to evict.

What about Section 24 of the Housing Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2002?

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

What about Section 24 of the Housing Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2002?

Part IIA of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 only applies to land (note, not a building) maintained for public enjoyment, i.e any park, open space, car park, playing field or other space provided for recreational, community or conservation purposes, or land within the curtilage of any public building, but not the building itself.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Part IIA of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 only applies to land (note, not a building) maintained for public enjoyment, i.e any park, open space, car park, playing field or other space provided for recreational, community or conservation purposes, or land within the curtilage of any public building, but not the building itself.

What about Section 19C of that Act?

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

What about Section 19C of that Act?

19C comes under Part IIA, land is defined as per my previous post.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

19C comes under Part IIA, land is defined as per my previous post.

Land is invariably taken to include buildings. Section 3 of the Land and Conveyancing Act 2009. There is no definition of land in ParIIA to say otherwise.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

Land is invariably taken to include buildings. Section 3 of the Land and Conveyancing Act 2009. There is no definition of land in ParIIA to say otherwise.

A definition from another Act has no bearing on this Act.

Section 19A (2) defines land for the purposes of the Act:-

In this part a reference to land includes —

( a ) land provided or maintained by a statutory body primarily for the amenity or recreation of the public or any class of persons (including any park, open space, car park, playing field or other space provided for recreational, community or conservation purposes) or is land within the curtilage of any public building,

( b ) land held by trustees for the benefit of the public or any class of the public, and

( c ) land covered by water

Unlike the 2009 Act buildings are excluded from the definition and not covered under the provisions of Part IIA, and even if it was to include buildings it would not apply to private buildings not for public amenity or recreation.

Peregrinus

The expression "a reference to X includes . . ." doesn't create an exhaustive or comprehensive definition, but rather introduces an expansion of the ordinary sense of the term X, or clarification as to what is and isn't included in cases where there might be doubt. Pt IIA deals with offences relating to entering and occupying land without consent, and someone might think that, well, if land is ordinarily open to the public or is dedicated in some way to public use, are these provisions of any relevance? Are they supposed to apply to it? So s. 19(2) is intended to clarify that. I don't think it means that the Pt IIA offences can only be committed in relation to public-access land; it means that even if the land is ordinarily publicly accessible, if you enter it in the conditions specified in, e.g., s. 19C, you are committing exactly the same offence as you would be if the land were entirely private.

Kevin3

Peregrinus wrote: »

The expression "a reference to X includes . . ." doesn't create an exhaustive or comprehensive definition, but rather introduces an expansion of the ordinary sense of the term X, or clarification as to what is and isn't included in cases where there might be doubt. Pt IIA deals with offences relating to entering and occupying land without consent, and someone might think that, well, if land is ordinarily open to the public or is dedicated in some way to public use, are these provisions of any relevance? Are they supposed to apply to it? So s. 19(2) is intended to clarify that. I don't think it means that the Pt IIA offences can only be committed in relation to public-access land; it means that even if the land is ordinarily publicly accessible, if you enter it in the conditions specified in, e.g., s. 19C, you are committing exactly the same offence as you would be if the land were entirely private.

I agree with this but to clarify the point the word used is "land" and this couldn't include buildings or dwellings or it would say otherwise.

Peregrinus

Kevin3 wrote: »

I agree with this but to clarify the point the word used is "land" and this couldn't include buildings or dwellings or it would say otherwise.

Land generally includes buildings (walls, fences, ditches, structures of every kind); they are considered to be part of the land. That's why the guy who rents a flat to you is your landlord, not your buildinglord.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Land generally includes buildings (walls, fences, ditches, structures of every kind); they are considered to be part of the land.

Indeed, unless however a contrary intention appears in an Act which is the case here. For example land also generally covers "land covered by water", so why include that and not the buildings? Or why if all land including buildings is included would it say "or is land within the curtilage of any public building", but not mention the building itself?

From what I remember the intention of the amendment was to combat a certain group of people bringing caravans onto public land (fields, parks etc) and occupying them.

It is clear that this is in relation to open public spaces such as parks etc being occupied for particular reasons.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's why the guy who rents a flat to you is your landlord, not your buildinglord.

Land in landlord does not really mean land in the traditional sense, it derives from landed property owned by a Lord.

In modern times landed property generally refers to housing estates or land with a buildings on them, but back then it simply meant property which made money for its owner.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

A definition from another Act has no bearing on this Act.

Section 19A (2) defines land for the purposes of the Act:-



Unlike the 2009 Act buildings are excluded from the definition and not covered under the provisions of Part IIA, and even if it was to include buildings it would not apply to private buildings not for public amenity or recreation.

Land includes does not mean land excludes. Since it applies to private land it necessarily includes private buildings. How can a person occupy an building and not be occupying the land on which the building stands?

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

The expression "a reference to X includes . . ." doesn't create an exhaustive or comprehensive definition

I thought that in legal jargon it does. Certainly people on this forum have asserted this.

Statement by commissioner: https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/our-departments/office-of-corporate-communications/press-releases/2018/september/comment-from-commissioner-drew-harris-on-policing-of-protest-at-north-frederick-street-dublin-on-the-13-9-18.html

4ensic15

Victor wrote: »

I thought that it legal jargon it does. Certainly people on this forum have asserted this.

If the definition was land means and then offered a restricted subset of land then it would be a restrictive definition. Includes is an expansive definition. People assert a lot of things on this forum. Not all are correct.

Kevin3

Okay, it seems the word 'land' might actually include buildings:

"Interpretation Act 2005
21. - (1) In an enactment, a word or expression to which a particular meaning, construction or effect is assigned in Part 1 of the Schedule has the meaning, construction or effect so assigned to it.

Schedule
....
'land' includes tenements, hereditaments, houses and buildings, land covered by water and any estate, right or interest in or over land;
...."

I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with the apparent intention of the legislation which I can't see having that aim.

Kevin3

Kevin3 wrote: »

I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with the apparent intention of the legislation which I can't see having that aim.

There is a legal term, which i cannot for the life of me remember, which essentially states that if the drafters of legislation avoided a particular formulation (eg one that might seem obvious), that formulation should be avoided when interpreting the legislation.

It's a latin phrase, anyone know what I'm thinking of?

I'm not sure what the Latin is for "if they wanted to say that, they would have said it", but that's the gist of it!

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, unless however a contrary intention appears in an Act which is the case here. For example land also generally covers "land covered by water", so why include that and not the buildings? Or why if all land including buildings is included would it say "or is land within the curtilage of any public building", but not mention the building itself?

From what I remember the intention of the amendment was to combat a certain group of people bringing caravans onto public land (fields, parks etc) and occupying them.

Mmm.

If the intention was to cover only the land mentioned in paras (a), (b) and (c) of the definition, then the definition would be framed as "land means (a), (b) and (c)". "Land includes . . ." would definitely be a drafting error, if the intention was an exhaustive definition. Several other definitions in s.19A are framed as "[term] means . . .", so that formulation is evidently avaialable to the drafter, and familiar to him.

Also, look at the definition of "consent duly given", also in s.19A. The definition tells us who has to give consent (a) in the case of lands referred to in subsection (2)(a), (b) in the case of lands referred to in subsection (2)(b), and (c) in any other case. If your reading was correct, "any other case" could only be lands referred to in subsection (2)(c), so why would the drafter depart from the that formulation and adopt a very expansive one? This decision only makes sense if "land" includes not only the categories mentioned in subsection (2), but land generally.

Similarly, "owner" is defined in a way that seems to suggest that "land" is not confined to the three categories mentioned in subsection (2).

You ask, reasonably, why have the defininition in subs (2) at all? All the categories of land mentioned would be "land" within the ordinary meaning of the word, even without that definition. I think the answer is (a) as already suggested, to anticipate any argument that Pt IIA is not meant to apply to publicly-accesible land, but also (b) to identify those categories of land so that provision can be made for how the concepts of "consent" and "owner" apply to them.

Essentially, your argument is that the word "includes" means "includes only these things, and nothing else". But that's not the ordinary meaning of the word "includes"; "John was included in the invitation to the cinema" does not suggest that Jown was the only person invited to the cinema. Plus, in section 19A, have a look at the definition of "object"; it's clear that in that definition "includes" can hardly mean "includes only".

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Land in landlord does not really mean land in the traditional sense, it derives from landed property owned by a Lord.

In modern times landed property generally refers to housing estates or land with a buildings on them, but back then it simply meant property which made money for its owner.

I'm gonna say no. "Landed property" is property - i..e ownership - of land, or of the right to possess or occupy land, or of income derived from land. And "landlord" was originally a owner of land (and not necessarily an owner who was a "lord" in the feudal, political or peerage senses of the word; in fact "landord" probably predates the development of these senses). Later it came to refer specifically to an owner of land which has been let to somebody else.

4ensic15

Kevin3 wrote: »

Okay, it seems the word 'land' might actually include buildings:

"Interpretation Act 2005
21. - (1) In an enactment, a word or expression to which a particular meaning, construction or effect is assigned in Part 1 of the Schedule has the meaning, construction or effect so assigned to it.

Schedule
....
'land' includes tenements, hereditaments, houses and buildings, land covered by water and any estate, right or interest in or over land;
...."

I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with the apparent intention of the legislation which I can't see having that aim.

Of course it had that aim. Why would they want to stop at the door of a building. The guards could, on foot of a credible complaint from the owner arrested all those inside the building and brought them before a court. Instead, the owner has to go the the High Court at her own expense, obtain an injunction, serve it and then engage a private security firm to actually regain possession. The guards have ended up with negative publicity and have encouraged the occupation of another building. It is an utter waste of the states resources and a failure to vindicate the owners property rights.

GM228

Kevin3 wrote: »

Okay, it seems the word 'land' might actually include buildings:

"Interpretation Act 2005
21. - (1) In an enactment, a word or expression to which a particular meaning, construction or effect is assigned in Part 1 of the Schedule has the meaning, construction or effect so assigned to it.

Schedule
....
'land' includes tenements, hereditaments, houses and buildings, land covered by water and any estate, right or interest in or over land;
...."

I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with the apparent intention of the legislation which I can't see having that aim.

It is true that "land" generally includes buildings (as 4ensic15 and Peregrinus already pointed out), however as I pointed out already the above applies unless a contrary intention appears in an Act and so is not absolute, but I do concede to both Peregrinus and 4ensic15 in making a good point that "includes" is not an exhaustive definition and so must include a building, a point I missed at first.

Side question: Ihave come across at least one judgement in the past (totally unrelated) in which the court deemed something to be outside the scope of a provision which had a "includes" definition simply because it wasn't within the definition, it may have been for obvious reasons (I can't remember the specifics) and so I do wonder has an Iriah court ever specifically dealt with the "means" and "includes" terminology for statutory interpretation. There is some guidance on the issue in foreign jurisdictions, just not sure about here.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There is a legal term, which i cannot for the life of me remember, which essentially states that if the drafters of legislation avoided a particular formulation (eg one that might seem obvious), that formulation should be avoided when interpreting the legislation.

It's a latin phrase, anyone know what I'm thinking of?

I'm not sure what the Latin is for "if they wanted to say that, they would have said it", but that's the gist of it!

Are you thinking of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, unfortunately statutory interpretation isn't as simple as that and can be a complicated area of law in itself, statutory interpretation like all areas of law isn't always black and white.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm gonna say no.  "Landed property" is property - i..e ownership - of land, or of the right to possess or occupy land, or of income derived from land.  And "landlord" was originally a owner of land (and not necessarily an owner who was a "lord" in the feudal, political or peerage senses of the word; in fact "landord" probably predates the development of these senses).  Later it came to refer specifically to an owner of land which has been let to somebody else.

The lord in landlord has it's origins from the feudal sense, i.e lord of the manor, not a lord in the noble sense although that's how it may have evolved in itself. It is derived from the old English hlāford - the bread winner. Anyway we are going off topic.

So, back on topic...

4ensic15 wrote: »

The guards could, on foot of a credible complaint from the owner arrested all those inside the building and brought them before a court. Instead, the owner has to go the the High Court at her own expense, obtain an injunction, serve it and then engage a private security firm to actually regain possession. The guards have ended up with negative publicity and have encouraged the occupation of another building. It is an utter waste of the states resources and a failure to vindicate the owners property rights.

There's an important aspect of the provision we have missed, something I think I mentioned in the past when discussing similar topics, but Part IIA can't apply to a simple trespasser in the ordinary sense because S19C is qualified by (i) to (v) of S19C (1)(b):-

19C. — (1) A person, without the duly given consent of the owner, shall not —

( a ) enter and occupy any land, or

( b ) bring onto or place on any land any object,

where such entry or occupation or the bringing onto or placing on the land of such object is likely to —

(i) substantially damage the land,

(ii) substantially and prejudicially affect any amenity in respect of the land,

(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,

(iv) otherwise render the land or any amenity in respect of the land, or the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land, unsanitary or unsafe,

(v) substantially interfere with the land, any amenity in respect of the land, the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land.

In other words simple entry or occupation of land in itself (parts (a) and (b)) is outside the scope of the provision unless it is likely to damage land etc. At least one of the situations mentioned in (i) to (v) must occur before an offence under (a) or (b) occurs and naturally enough if no offence occurs the Gardaí are afforded no power to direct someone to leave or to arrest them.

In essence it is similar to the provisions of the 1971 Act but with a slightly wider scope.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

It is true that "land" generally includes buildings (as 4ensic15 and Peregrinus already pointed out), however as I pointed out already the above applies unless a contrary intention appears in an Act and so is not absolute, but I do concede to both Peregrinus and 4ensic15 in making a good point that "includes" is not an exhaustive definition and so must include a building, a point I missed at first.

Side question: Ihave come across at least one judgement in the past (totally unrelated) in which the court deemed something to be outside the scope of a provision which had a "includes" definition simply because it wasn't within the definition, it may have been for obvious reasons (I can't remember the specifics) and so I do wonder has an Iriah court ever specifically dealt with the "means" and "includes" terminology for statutory interpretation. There is some guidance on the issue in foreign jurisdictions, just not sure about here.





Are you thinking of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, unfortunately statutory interpretation isn't as simple as that and can be a complicated area of law in itself, statutory interpretation like all areas of law isn't always black and white.





The lord in landlord has it's origins from the feudal sense, i.e lord of the manor, not a lord in the noble sense although that's how it may have evolved in itself. It is derived from the old English hlāford - the bread winner. Anyway we are going off topic.

So, back on topic...





There's an important aspect of the provision we have missed, something I think I mentioned in the past when discussing similar topics, but Part IIA can't apply to a simple trespasser in the ordinary sense because S19C is qualified by (i) to (v) of S19C (1)(b):-



In other words simple entry or occupation of land in itself (parts (a) and (b)) is outside the scope of the provision unless it is likely to damage land etc. At least one of the situations mentioned in (i) to (v) must occur before an offence under (a) or (b) occurs and naturally enough if no offence occurs the Gardaí are afforded no power to direct someone to leave or to arrest them.

In essence it is similar to the provisions of the 1971 Act but with a slightly wider scope.

(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,

This is easily made out in the Frederick St case. ow can the owners use the property with occupiers inside?

The garda have powers of arrest under Section 24.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,

This is easily made out in the Frederick St case. ow can the owners use the property with occupiers inside?

But it very much depends on what is considered reasonable use considering all relevant circumstances and weather or not they actually prevent any reasonable use by the owner.

Refusal to leave does not in itself prevent the reasonable use in all cases.

Also is reasonable in this case objective or subjective? Objective I would imagine.

4ensic15 wrote: »

The garda have powers of arrest under Section 24.

S24 affords no power of arrest for Part IIA, the power of arrest is contained in S19E (b) and is dependent on an offence occurring under S19C.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

But it very much depends on what is considered reasonable use considering all relevant circumstances and weather or not they actually prevent any reasonable use by the owner.

Refusal to leave does not in itself prevent the reasonable use in all cases.

Also is reasonable in this case objective or subjective? Objective I would imagine.




S24 affords no power of arrest for Part IIA, the power of arrest is contained in S19E (b) and is dependent on an offence occurring under S19C.

An angle grinder had to be used to open the door. On any basis the owners could not make reasonable use. The offence is easily made out.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Are you thinking of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, unfortunately statutory interpretation isn't as simple as that and can be a complicated area of law in itself, statutory interpretation like all areas of law isn't always black and white.

Yes, that's the one I'm thinking of.

I know that statutory interpretation can be undertaken through a variety of different modes, just offering that example as one possible approach.

Carawaystick

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If there are a lot of them and they are thuggish and aggressive, or I was the type of genteel little old lady that buys georgian houses and does them up for profit, I would probably enlist the help of a private security company to assist me in doing so.

But a private security person has to be licensed, and have their id visible. the balaclavaed brit* was not a private security person


*as the van had a british reg, it would be tax evasion for an irish resident to drive it the wrong way down a street and park it illegally on double yellow lines within 5m of a junction.
I'm sure the property owner is shocked, shocked there was illegal parking going on.

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

But a private security person has to be licensed

It seems they don't have to be when carrying out a court order.

https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-examiner/20180913/282406990248950

Either way, the Private Security Authority said the execution of repossession orders did not fall within its remit and that people involved in repossessions were not licenced by them.

Claw Hammer

Victor wrote: »

It seems they don't have to be when carrying out a court order.

https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-examiner/20180913/282406990248950

What about the PSRA?

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What about the PSRA?

what does it have to do with them? the people who were thrown out (i refuse to use the word evicted) were not tenants.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what does it have to do with them? the people who were thrown out (i refuse to use the word evicted) were not tenants.

people who manage property must be registered with the PSRA. Nothing to do with the status of the people who were thrown out.

Grolschevik

Claw Hammer wrote: »

people who manage property must be registered with the PSRA. Nothing to do with the status of the people who were thrown out.

Somewhat related, I'm pretty sure those acting as "private security" must be registered with the PSA and also display ID.

ohnonotgmail

Grolschevik wrote: »

Somewhat related, I'm pretty sure those acting as "private security" must be registered with the PSA and also display ID.

look at post 35

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

people who manage property must be registered with the PSRA. Nothing to do with the status of the people who were thrown out.

they do but what does that have to with the execution of the court order?

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they do but what does that have to with the execution of the court order?

They didn't execute a court order.They occupied the property as agent of thw owner and took control of it.

sexmag

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what does it have to do with them? the people who were thrown out (i refuse to use the word evicted) were not tenants.

Exactly and the person who owns it isn't a landlord as nobody was living in it but these people still refer to them as landlords when really they should be referred to as property owners

Victor

Grolschevik wrote: »

Somewhat related, I'm pretty sure those acting as "private security" must be registered with the PSA

Who says they weren't registered?

Eric Cartman

Victor wrote: »

Who says they weren't registered?

the same people complaining a van with a UK plate and an 'exported' marker on the DVLA database doesn't have any tax or MOT....

This is crazy. Planning and defending occupation workshop advertised on Facebook.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/this-is-not-a-peaceful-protest-td-slams-practical-workshop-organised-by-housing-activists-37323584.html

Victor

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the same people complaining a van with a UK plate and an 'exported' marker on the DVLA database doesn't have any tax or MOT....

They were able to successfully search the DVLA database. They weren't able to successfully search the PSA database.

Eric Cartman

Victor wrote: »

They were able to successfully search the DVLA database. They weren't able to successfully search the PSA database.

and they found a van that had been exported from the UK but not VRT'd here yet and went off on a tangent saying its not road legal because it wasn't road legal in the country it was exported from while it was perfectly legal to drive it here while awaiting VRT.

Ireland doesn't have the efficient database access to check these things out, the reality of it is nobody knows who these guys were and anything posted saying that they acted in any way illegally is pure speculation.

Mr. Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

This is crazy. Planning and defending occupation workshop advertised on Facebook.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/this-is-not-a-peaceful-protest-td-slams-practical-workshop-organised-by-housing-activists-37323584.html

Charge them and let them occupy Mountjoy for a while.

GM228

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Charge them and let them occupy Mountjoy for a while.

Indeed, you could charge them with conspiracy to do whatever.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, you could charge them with conspiracy to do whatever.

But would you secure a conviction?