Driver left off with drink driving after being unlawfully handcuffed

h3000

What a load of **** :mad:

DRINK driving charges brought against a motorist who was more than four times over the legal limit were dismissed after a judge ruled the use of handcuffs by gardai was unacceptable.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/342751/suspected-limerick-drink-driver-was-handcuffed-unlawfully-by-garda.html

Kaizersoze81

I don’t know why the guards even bother anymore with crap like that to deal with. Pathetic decision by the Judge.

wonski

What a joke...

So now they can't put handcuffs on arrested people unless they have a valid reason?

I thought arresting someone is a pretty valid reason, apparently not.

recyclebin

This kind of thing happens every day of the week. It's not how bad you have been, it's how good your legal team is.

4ensic15

wonski wrote: »

What a joke...

So now they can't put handcuffs on arrested people unless they have a valid reason?

I thought arresting someone is a pretty valid reason, apparently not.

Arresting someone is a valid reason for putting on handcuffs?

Mint Sauce

Oh FFS!

Thought cuffs were applied precisely for the reasosn of protecting the arresting guard(s). They cant do right for doing wrong it seems now. Four times over the limit, and it gets thrown out for trivia.

4ensic15

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Oh FFS!

Thought cuffs were applied precisely for the reasosn of protecting the arresting guard(s). They cant do right for doing wrong it seems now. Four times over the limit, and it gets thrown out for trivia.

If the person is threatening the arresting guard the handcuffs can be put on. That is undoubted. The point is they can't be put on because the guard feels like it. Not every person arrested threatens the guard. A very small minority are difficult.

McCrack

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the person is threatening the arresting guard the handcuffs can be put on. That is undoubted. The point is they can't be put on because the guard feels like it. Not every person arrested threatens the guard. A very small minority are difficult.

Yes

There was a supreme court decision on this very point

The arresting guard here fcuked up unfortunately

The District Court is bound by the Superior Courts and had to throw it out

AnneFrank

Kaizersoze81 wrote: »

I don’t know why the guards even bother anymore with crap like that to deal with. Pathetic decision by the Judge.

It's the guards fault

Guy:Incognito

AnneFrank wrote: »

It's the guards fault

It's the supreme court judges fault for setting president or deciding it should be this way. It should be entirely down to the Gard in each case. It's their safety that's involved, not judge sitting safely at home.

Try_harder

The rich dont have the laws apply to them. They get a good brief and get off on a technicality

Mint Sauce

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the person is threatening the arresting guard the handcuffs can be put on. That is undoubted. The point is they can't be put on because the guard feels like it. Not every person arrested threatens the guard. A very small minority are difficult.

And by the time they find out the arrested person is threatning, the guard(s) may not be able to get the cuffs on.

Now you have an injuried guard or two. If the person doe not seem a threat, then take the cuffs off. Four times over the limit, and he could have done anything, even harmed him self. There is little justice in this country, and has the man learned his lesson, proabably not, and if memory serves me correct, the insurance question is also have you been convicted, not arrested and case thrown out.

:mad:

AnneFrank

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's the supreme court judges fault for setting president or deciding it should be this way. It should be entirely down to the Gard in each case. It's their safety that's involved, not judge sitting safely at home.

Actually you're wrong, it's the guards fault for not following procedures, judge had no choice

Try_harder

AnneFrank wrote: »

Actually you're wrong, it's the guards fault for not following procedures, judge had no choice

The barrister used his clever thinking to get his client off on a technicality- the law is an ass.

Pkiernan

Try_harder wrote: »

The rich dont have the laws apply to them. They get a good brief and get off on a technicality

And the poor just get unlimited suspended sentences.

Guy:Incognito

Try_harder wrote: »

The rich dont have the laws apply to them. They get a good brief and get off on a technicality

Whos the rich person in this case?

Try_harder

Pkiernan wrote: »

And the poor just get unlimited suspended sentences.

Ive seen plenty of people lose their licence - rich guy gets a brief, adjourns til he gets an easy judge them he gets his client off. I see that every week

Mint Sauce

AnneFrank wrote: »

Actually you're wrong, it's the guards fault for not following procedures, judge had no choice

The Guard made a decision in a second of two, taking into account his, and his colleagues safety, and the duty of care of his detainee. I doubt court precident entered his head.

Try_harder

AnneFrank wrote: »

Again, it's the law. So it was that guards fault. What part do you not understand?

The law is an ass. Its a plaything for clever barristers without any regard for the affect on society.

AnneFrank

Try_harder wrote: »

The barrister used his clever thinking to get his client off on a technicality- the law is an ass.

Again, it's the law. So it was that guards fault. What part do you not understand?

Try_harder

AnneFrank wrote: »

Again, it's the law. So it was that guards fault. What part do you not understand?

What part of the law is an ass do you not understand? Im aware its legally kosher, but morally and ethically it stinks! Ok Anne!

Guy:Incognito

AnneFrank wrote: »

Actually you're wrong, it's the guards fault for not following procedures, judge had no choice

Not my point. The gard should be free to decide whether handcuffs are needed. Interfereing judges have it this way.

From my reading it's up to the gard to decide, unless a judge , at a later date, decides some scumbag probably wouldn't have attacked the gard. Ill bet you 50 quid the judge wouldnt have been happy being in the back of the car with the guy that day not handcuffed. Suddenly the guy being handcuffed would have been fully warranted.

Mint Sauce

AnneFrank wrote: »

Again, it's the law. So it was that guards fault. What part do you not understand?

And precident it seem. Its the justice system thats an ass.

AnneFrank

Mint Sauce wrote: »

The Guard made a decision in a second of two, taking into account his, and his colleagues safety, and the duty of care of his detainee. I doubt court precident entered his head.

Jesus wept do you understand what the law is ? The guard broke procedure, whinge all you like but it was his fault, hence the judge had no choice.

Try_harder

AnneFrank wrote: »

Jesus wept do you understand what the law is ? The guard broke procedure, whinge all you like but it was his fault, hence the judge had no choice.

Gardai are human. Humans are not infallible- sols exploit this to get their clients off. Thats what Ive a problem with. The law is a game for the rich.

AnneFrank

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Not my point. The gard should be free to decide whether handcuffs are needed. Interfereing judges have it this way.

From my reading it's up to the gard to decide, unless a judge , at a later date, decides some scumbag probably wouldn't have attacked the gard. Ill bet you 50 quid the judge wouldnt have been happy being in the back of the car with the guy that day not handcuffed. Suddenly the guy being handcuffed would have been fully warranted.

Your point is waffle and irrelevant.

McCrack

Try_harder wrote: »

Gardai are human. Humans are not infallible- sols exploit this to get their clients off. Thats what Ive a problem with. The law is a game for the rich.

Guards know the rules and procedures

This guard made a mistake and the case got thrown out

Google and read dpp v cullen

AnneFrank

Try_harder wrote: »

Gardai are human. Humans are not infallible- sols exploit this to get their clients off. Thats what Ive a problem with. The law is a game for the rich.

Irrelevant waffle. Try harder

Dtp1979

Then the Guard should’ve been penalised with something meaningless. The guilty party was still completely wrong and whether handcuffs were used or not had no bearing on this

Try_harder

McCrack wrote: »

Guards know the rules and procedures

This guard made a mistake and the case got thrown out

Google and read dpp v cullen

Im not arguing the technical correctness of the decision!

Im just arguing the social ethics

Try_harder

AnneFrank wrote: »

Irrelevant waffle. Try harder

Anne climb back in your wardrobe

Try_harder

Sure the law know how to cover their own asses. Judge can look up child porn - get it thrown out on a technicality and then retire.

The law is an ass.

McCrack

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Then the Guard should’ve been penalised with something meaningless. The guilty party was still completely wrong and whether handcuffs were used or not had no bearing on this

The guard isn't being penalised

The guard presents the case and facts and the court applies the law

In this instance correct procedure wasn't followed and the arrest unlawful and the District Court is bound by the ddp v cullen decision and had to throw it out

This isn't a new BTW, every guard knows this and the vast majority of drink driving arrests will not fall on this point because guards know about it

Try_harder

McCrack wrote: »

The guard isn't being penalised

The guard presents the case and facts and the court applies the law

In this instance correct procedure wasn't followed and the arrest unlawful and the District Court is bound by the ddp v cullen decision and had to throw it out

This isn't a new BTW, every guard knows this and the vast majority of drink driving arrests will not fall on this point because guards know about it

No but the brief will find some small error to get a case thrown out. The Irish summons a case in point.

Try_harder

McCrack wrote: »

Small errors generally don't get cases dismissed

The slip rule is applied for these small errors

Im aware of the slip rule, my understanding is that refers mostly to issues in court.

McCrack

Try_harder wrote: »

No but the brief will find some small error to get a case thrown out. The Irish summons a case in point.

Small errors generally don't get cases dismissed

The slip rule is applied for these small errors

Dtp1979

What can’t the judge be allowed to use common sense though? It’s ridiculous

GreeBo

Why does this result in the case being thrown out?

Its not like the handcuffs changed the facts of the case?

cursai

The guard didn't make a mistake. His prority is himself and his colleagues safety. He effected the arrest. He accomplished that task. The courts ****ed up their side.
That same guard will do the exact same thing the next time because his first priority is his safety not the defendants conviction.

McCrack

cursai wrote: »

The guard didn't make a mistake. His prority is himself and his colleagues safety. He effected the arrest. He accomplished that task. The courts ****ed up their side.
That same guard will do the exact same thing the next time because his first priority is his safety not the defendants conviction.

Dpp v cullen

Every guard knows about it

AnneFrank

Try_harder wrote: »

Anne climb back in your wardrobe

Anne Frank was never in a wardrobe, it was an annex,and you just keep digging a bigger hole. You are talking pure rubbish.Reality and your imagined perfect world are two very, very different things.

TallGlass

How is a Garda ment to know. The guy is pissed, how are they the Gardai ment to know if this guy is going to start been aggressive mid transport or do something to him in custody. It's for the safety of everyone that your handcuffed, even if your not acting up.

The judge is brushing over the real issue here which is the guy knowing when and drove while 4 times over the limit. The judge could have recommended to the Garda they he may think about his handcuff use and continue on with the case.

Judges are away with the fairies if you ask me.

elperello

Reading this thread I was reminded of this incident -

http://claredaly.ie/statement-from-clare-daly-td/

AnneFrank

Dtp1979 wrote: »

What can’t the judge be allowed to use common sense though? It’s ridiculous

Have you ever heard of the law ?

Try_harder

AnneFrank wrote: »

Anne Frank was never in a wardrobe, it was an annex,and you just keep digging a bigger hole. You are talking pure rubbish.Reality and your imagined perfect world are two very, very different things.

Anexing Ms Frank sounds good to me

4ensic15

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's the supreme court judges fault for setting president or deciding it should be this way. It should be entirely down to the Gard in each case. It's their safety that's involved, not judge sitting safely at home.

It is down to the guard in each case. That guard had a blanket policy and did not decide in each individual case.

AnneFrank

Try_harder wrote: »

Anexing Ms Frank sounds good to me

Cringe.

Try_harder

Why do people refer to a Garda as a Guard? Its Garda, Gardai!

4ensic15

Mint Sauce wrote: »

The Guard made a decision in a second of two, taking into account his, and his colleagues safety, and the duty of care of his detainee. I doubt court precident entered his head.

The guard stated he had a blanket policy. He made no decision.

cursai

McCrack wrote: »

Dpp v cullen

Every guard knows about it

Guard v kick in skull.

Every guard knows about it.


The guards aren't the courts training bags.

4ensic15

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Then the Guard should’ve been penalised with something meaningless. The guilty party was still completely wrong and whether handcuffs were used or not had no bearing on this

The guard wasn't penalised. The guard wasn't on trial!