Peaceful civil matter protest outside premises and home?

NeptunesMoon

Hi so just imagining this hypotetical scenario... Imagine somebody was owed money, or wasnt happy with a service they got and they didn't fancy going through all the rigmarole of solicitors, court and that... Im guessing they are within their rights to go and protest outside the premises, just a peaceful one maybe with a banner or such?

What if they followed the owner home to protest outside their house? Is this crossing a line here? If they dont know where they live, could it be seen as stalking/intimidation if they were to follow them home to again, just hold a peaceful protest outside their home?

does it also dpeend on whats being said on the banner, or thats a separate issue? to avoid defamation and that, would something like "I regret giving money/business to x", so its more just a personal opinion?

I know in some cultures, shame is taken a lot more serious, but maybe not so much here? thoughts?

nuac

Mod
Sorry we don't give legal advice here.
Will leave open for general discussion subject to forum rules

BattleCorp

Non legal opinion here as I have zero legal qualifications but I think that if you carried on with such action you could possibly find yourself in trouble for defamation or even harrassment.

con747

I think your just trying to stir up sh*te. If you have a problem then go through legal channels. "imagining this hypotetical scenario" yeah:rolleyes:

28064212

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

Hi so just imagining this hypotetical scenario... Imagine somebody was owed money, or wasnt happy with a service they got and they didn't fancy going through all the rigmarole of solicitors, court and that... Im guessing they are within their rights to go and protest outside the premises, just a peaceful one maybe with a banner or such?

What if they followed the owner home to protest outside their house? Is this crossing a line here? If they dont know where they live, could it be seen as stalking/intimidation if they were to follow them home to again, just hold a peaceful protest outside their home?

Harassment will be a consideration:

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 wrote:

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—
(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and
(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

does it also dpeend on whats being said on the banner, or thats a separate issue? to avoid defamation and that, would something like "I regret giving money/business to x", so its more just a personal opinion?

That's not avoiding defamation.

Defamation Act 2009 wrote:

“defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society

Somebody protesting against a person for any reason will almost certainly be considered to be injurious to their reputation, regardless of the detail (or lack thereof) of the protest. There tends not to be near as many loopholes in the law as people assume.

Then there's the "in practice" side. If a garda gets called, there's a very strong possibility that their practical resolution to the issue will be to ask you to move along. Refusal to do so could well end up with you in cell, regardless of the legality of the protest

NeptunesMoon

cheers for all the replies!

How does the defamation side of thing work if it's a company being protested against as opposed to an individual?

So if instead of a banner saying "I regret doing business with x", it would be "I regret doing business with company x"?

Would potential for a claim of defamation still apply?

I remember seeing protests outside an office in Dublin and was wondering how it worked and what would be within the law to be able to protest about and if that protest then followed the CEO or MD or whatever home and protested near their home, is that crossing into something illegal?

28064212

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

cheers for all the replies!

How does the defamation side of thing work if it's a company being protested against as opposed to an individual?

So if instead of a banner saying "I regret doing business with x", it would be "I regret doing business with company x"?

Would potential for a claim of defamation still apply?

Yes:

12.— The provisions of this Act apply to a body corporate as they apply to a natural person, and a body corporate may bring a defamation action under this Act in respect of a statement concerning it that it claims is defamatory whether or not it has incurred or is likely to incur financial loss as a result of the publication of that statement.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

I remember seeing protests outside an office in Dublin and was wondering how it worked and what would be within the law to be able to protest about and if that protest then followed the CEO or MD or whatever home and protested near their home, is that crossing into something illegal?

Again, what happens in practice and what is legal in theory is not always the same. Defamation actions (by my understanding) must be instigated by the defamed, and the Gardaí will not get involved, even if requested. The defamed may choose not to take that route for any number of reasons. The Gardaí will almost certainly get involved if there is a question of harassment.

NeptunesMoon

Cheers again for the reply on this!

SUrely though, if that was the case, that even holding a banner with a personal opinion saying something like "I regret doing business with company x", this is no different to a food critic writing a review on a restaurant and saying they regret going there and won't be back? so how do they get away with it?

and if the gardai won't get involved,how would someone actually pursue an issue of defamation?

Also, imagine one company had an issue with another company and that company got their employees to stand outside the other companies premises, could the employees end up in trouble?

If they were then asked to follow the CEO at a reasonable distance to their home and continue the protest on public land outside their home, could, is this deemed harrassment/intimidation and is it something they'd be arrested for immediatley, or just given a warning and told to move on?

notsoyoungwan

Christ, what a thoroughly unpleasant person you must be to even consider doing this. You’re talking about following someone home, to where they should have peace and privacy, potentially impacting others (you don’t know who they live with- spouse/partner, children, elderly parents etc) all because of some gripe you have with them on a business matter?? And no matter how much guff you spout about being in public land, peaceful, just placards etc, your presence and actions will be threatening and intimidating. And you know it. Why else would you be doing it?

Go down the proper channels if you have legitimate reasons to do so. Otherwise, cop on and move on.

Peregrinus

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

Cheers again for the reply on this!

SUrely though, if that was the case, that even holding a banner with a personal opinion saying something like "I regret doing business with company x", this is no different to a food critic writing a review on a restaurant and saying they regret going there and won't be back? so how do they get away with it?

Not standing outside the chef's home holding up a placard with their review printed on it is probably a good start.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

and if the gardai won't get involved,how would someone actually pursue an issue of defamation?

The guards never get involved in defamation proceedings; they are a civil matter. People pursue an issue of defamation by suing the person that they allege has defamed them.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

Also, imagine one company had an issue with another company and that company got their employees to stand outside the other companies premises, could the employees end up in trouble?

Simply standing outside premises, with nothing more, is unlikely to get anyone into trouble. They might be obstructing the pavement or the road and, if so, they might be asked to move on and, if they didn't, then they might get in trouble.

Ifther is more - if they are causing a disturbance, shouting, displaying slogans, intimidating or deterring customers of the business, etc, - any of this can get them into trouble, obviously. If they are in trouble, in no case would it ever be a defence for them to say "I did this because my boss told me to". That might get their boss in trouble as well as them, but not instead of them.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

If they were then asked to follow the CEO at a reasonable distance to their home and continue the protest on public land outside their home, could, is this deemed harrassment/intimidation and is it something they'd be arrested for immediatley, or just given a warning and told to move on?

Probably a warning to move on, in the first instance. Legal action might follow - defamation proceedings or malicious falsehood proceedings, depending on what was said; possibly proceedings seeking an injunction to prevent a repeat of the behaviour; in the case you suggest of a business-to-business dispute possibly a complaint to regulators alleging unfair or anticompetitive business practices. Having moved on when asked to wouldn't be a defence to any of these; you'd have to defend them on their merits.

28064212

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

Cheers again for the reply on this!

SUrely though, if that was the case, that even holding a banner with a personal opinion saying something like "I regret doing business with company x", this is no different to a food critic writing a review on a restaurant and saying they regret going there and won't be back? so how do they get away with it?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/print

And once again, what happens in practice does not always match the theory. Even if restaurant reviews were defamatory by their nature, how long do you think a restaurant will last once it's published far and wide that they're suing because of a bad review?

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

and if the gardai won't get involved,how would someone actually pursue an issue of defamation?

Same as the Gardaí not getting involved in property disputes or disagreements over wills. The aggrieved party can take a civil suit

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

Also, imagine one company had an issue with another company and that company got their employees to stand outside the other companies premises, could the employees end up in trouble?

If they were then asked to follow the CEO at a reasonable distance to their home and continue the protest on public land outside their home, could, is this deemed harrassment/intimidation and is it something they'd be arrested for immediatley, or just given a warning and told to move on?

Being an employee changes nothing, except now the employer might also be a defendant in any proceedings

NeptunesMoon

Cheers again for the replies.

Its not fair or right to assume this is my idea. Its a post I made to see what the laws are surrounding the idea. I personally think a protest outside a business by another business, in cases where legal proceedings may take years to serve justice to those treated unfairly and at a current loss due to the issues, is a fair course of action, but that following somebody to their home to continue any protest, is crossing boundaries, legal, fair and moral and that anyone asked to do this for the business, should be well aware of the possible consequences of them following orders for a wage.

So simply standing outside a premises is ok, but once they are holding a banner, it's a case of defamation? I saw this in Dublin before outside a law firm of all places, it looked like an employee felt they were fired because of their religious views or something like this. I don't know what came of it though, but I wonder could the law firm have put forward a case of defamation?

If standing outside is ok, what if they had slogans on their clothes or t-shirts and all they did was stand within a few meters of the door of the premises, on a public pathway and didn't make any noise, or try interact with anyone?

If the garda don't get involved, then how could the business identify the people standing outside? If they were paid by a company to do the protest and it was obvious from the slogan/banner that "X company regrets doing business with X company", if the garda don't get involved, then I guess there's no way for the actual protesters to be identified? The company would only know the other company are behind it so I can't see how defamation cases could be put against the people being paid to stand there? This is without crossing the boundaries of following anyone home where the gardai could be called for harrassment/intimindation obv.

28064212

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

I personally think a protest outside a business...

Irrelevant.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

So simply standing outside a premises is ok

It's been said multiple times that it depends on context. Some random person standing outside for an hour one day is unlikely to matter. That same person showing up every single day for hours on end at the same place may well be considered harrassment. Someone else that's known to have an issue would be a different context again.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

but once they are holding a banner, it's a case of defamation?

Once they publish a defamatory statement, the business could have a defamation case. The manner of publication is not relevant.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

I wonder could the law firm have put forward a case of defamation?

Depends on context. Well, they absolutely could have put forward a defamation case, the context would decide whether they win. Note that, if it is accepted that a defamatory statement has been made, it is the responsibility of the defendant to prove that their statement is true, not the defamed to prove it's false

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

If the garda don't get involved

The Gardaí won't get involved with a defamation case. If there is a complaint of harrassment, they will. And in practice, if they get a call about someone loitering without good cause, they will likely ask that person to move on. Refusal to do so may well lead the Garda to believe that there is harrassment occurring

TheBoyConor

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

I know in some cultures, shame is taken a lot more serious, but maybe not so much here? thoughts?

Not so here. In ireland, being shamed is almost considered a badge of honour. Look at the likes of Sean Quinn, the Anglo Tapes, Denis O'Brien, Frank Dunlop, et al. the more the get in trouble and the more they are shamed, the more brazen they get. It's like some people have an appetite for it with the view among the public that fair play to them for having the balls to do what they did and that they are some cute hurrs and sure god loves an aul chancer.

NeptunesMoon

Cheers agian!

Is it possible to "harass" a business by stnading outside a premises for consecutive hours/days though? Fair enough you can defame a business, but harass?

when you say known to have an issue, what do you mean?

Ok so even something written on t-shirts can be defamation!

So in the case of the defendent having to prove their statement is true, surely that's easy to do if the statemetn is simply one of regret "company x regrets doing business with company y", the business owners of x can just confirm they regret it, so it can be deemed a true statement, just one of a personal opinion, so maybe very hard to get a defamation case ruled? Has there ever been a case like this put through court

So if the business report people who they don't know the identification of for loitering or possible business/company "harrassment" the garda can come and move them on and even if the garda take details, there's no real way for company y to get these details for a defamation case I'm thinking, so the risk of who company x get to protest outside company y premises is pretty much non existant frome what i see? obv that changes if they go and follow them home :P

Credit Checker Moose

If you are not careful the business will slap an injunction on you if you make yourself a pest. And they don't need to know your details, they can get an injunction against John/Jane Does.

A business can be defamed same as a natural person.

Your version of economical justice i.e. taking the law into your own hands could cost you more in the long run. Go talk to a solicitor.

bunderoon

A good/fair example would be if you were ripped off by a builder for shoddy work or paying up front for work that was never completed.
Say you have rang/texted/emailed this builder several times and never once got a call back. You have rogue trader programs about this very thing.

The police /courts seem powerless to make that builder give back the money owed or go and finish the job they were paid to do.

Can you then go outside their house (not obstructing anyone or making noise) with a sign that is asking them to return the money or finish the work?

Making known that this rouge trader has ripped off you and you are highlighting that you want what you paid for.

28064212

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

Is it possible to "harass" a business by stnading outside a premises for consecutive hours/days though? Fair enough you can defame a business, but harass?

I don't believe you can harass a business, but unless it's an empty building, employees and owners can certainly feel harassed

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

when you say known to have an issue, what do you mean?

For example, a dismissed employee who has no good reason for being outside a building they no longer work in

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

So in the case of the defendent having to prove their statement is true, surely that's easy to do if the statemetn is simply one of regret "company x regrets doing business with company y", the business owners of x can just confirm they regret it, so it can be deemed a true statement, just one of a personal opinion, so maybe very hard to get a defamation case ruled? Has there ever been a case like this put through court

I've linked the defamation law above, have a read of it. Even if you are confident in the truth of your statement, it's (a) not a guaranteed defence, and (b) expensive to defend, regardless of the outcome. Defamation proceedings regularly come down to who has the deepest pockets

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

So if the business report people who they don't know the identification of for loitering or possible business/company "harrassment" the garda can come and move them on and even if the garda take details, there's no real way for company y to get these details for a defamation case I'm thinking, so the risk of who company x get to protest outside company y premises is pretty much non existant frome what i see? obv that changes if they go and follow them home :P

You've made a lot of assumptions there without any apparent reason. And even if it's true that the company can't get the protestor's details, what's the benefit to the protestor? An hour standing outside a business before being moved on, with the threat of a harassment charge if they return?

Red Hare

Are candlelight vigils allowed as a form of protest?

Peregrinus

Red Hare wrote: »

Are candlelight vigils allowed as a form of protest?

Yes, but they only work on very calm days.

NeptunesMoon

cheers again for input!

How would an injunction work and how could they serve that on some ranom person they don't know standing outside a premises with a banner for a few days? i wouldn't really asay its taking the law into own hands? Its just advertising an opinion lol, the manner of which doesnt sound like its illegal unless somebody at the premises has grounds for claiming they are personally being harassed?

Interesting addition about the rogue trader builders and that, howdo the tv shows get away with it? they are surely doing bigger damage to the regue trader businesses airing stuff on tv than somebody with a banner which says they regret doing business and nothing more is doing?!?

The benefit of the protester is that they will get paid regardless from the company who wants them to protest, if they get moved on by police then they can end that before they put themselves in risk of a harassment charge as it seems they can't be immediately charged with harassment by just being there, until a time they are asked to move on and ignore this request?

Peregrinus

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

How would an injunction work and how could they serve that on some ranom person they don't know standing outside a premises with a banner for a few days?

By walking up to him and handing it to him.

In addition they can ask the court for permission to serve the injunction on all interested persons by, e.g., advertising it in a newspaper.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

i wouldn't really asay its taking the law into own hands? Its just advertising an opinion lol, the manner of which doesnt sound like its illegal unless somebody at the premises has grounds for claiming they are personally being harassed?

In a business-to-business dispute, the purpose of a picket is usually to disrupt somebody’s business by, e.g, discouraging customers or potential customers from entering the premises. So the core of any legal proceedings would likely be an allegation of unlawful interference with trade, unfair business practices, that kind of thing.

If, as suggested, you then follow someone home from his business premises to his house and continue the picket there, that will be presented as an aggravating circumstance of the initial complaint, and probably also as the basis for a complaint of harassment or intimidation.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

Interesting addition about the rogue trader builders and that, howdo the tv shows get away with it? they are surely doing bigger damage to the regue trader businesses airing stuff on tv than somebody with a banner which says they regret doing business and nothing more is doing?!?

They have the resources to lawyer up and to defend themselves in court proceedings. And they take care only to make specific factual allegations that they can prove to be true. (Note: not that they know to be true; that they can prove to be true.)

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

The benefit of the protester is that they will get paid regardless from the company who wants them to protest, if they get moved on by police then they can end that before they put themselves in risk of a harassment charge as it seems they can't be immediately charged with harassment by just being there, until a time they are asked to move on and ignore this request?

As against that benefit, you have to accept the detriment of the profound loss of self-respect, decency and dignity involved in accepting money to picket the home of somebody with whom they themselves have no quarrel. They should also bear in mind that if they are being paid to mount the picket, the claim on their placard that “I regret doing business with this company” is almost certainly untrue; it is not they but the person who is paying them who regrets doing business with the targeted company.

NeptunesMoon

Cheers for all that!

i don't really get you on the injuction. imagine there's 3 people who were doing a silent/peaceful protest, just holding banners outside a business premises, hwile on public land, wearing face masks and not identifiable, it's already been stated that the garda don't get involved, so some random person from the business can come out and give them a piece of paper telling them they need to go to court?

Unless garda get involved, who has the authority to do this, authority enough that the protestors would pay any mind to it? and what would the appliction for injunction state? Something like "to the 3 people standing outside company x premises" ? I can't see how this would hold any water?

The following home thing is something i would discourage if somebody was trying to plan this, but the picket outside a premises in a case where the company protesting has good reason for this and has exhausted other avenues, and has been treated unfairly with no compromise offered, I would see as ok.

I've seen other pickets where employees are striking, with banners saying "Fair pay now", this would insinuate the business isn't being fair to them, is this not even more defaming than a statement saying "company x regrets doing business with company y" ? Can regret be proven? If the directors of company x claim they regret doing business with company y, is that not proof? I imagine that's easier to prove than what can be considered "fair" pay?

So the banners wouldn't read "I regret" but "company x regrets"... if the people being paid are just there to hold this banner and nothing else, not to engage with anyone, not to shout or discourage anyone entering the business and they would be told not to speak to anyone about the matter too, or maybe they won't even know the details themselves, and the protest is ONLY outside the business premises.

I'm just trying to determine the risk to the people being paid to do the actual protesting, if they aren't individually indentifiable (wearing face masks), simply stand there with a banner that read "Company x regrets doing business with company y", don't engage in any conversations with anyone, or speak anything of the matter to passers by including any protest chants or any of that, only stay outside the business premise and don't follow anyone anywhere and if asked to move on by somebody with authority (Garda or similar) and don't return after such, or if asked what are they doing by Garda or someone with authority, they simply state we're being paid to be here and don't know any more details, and garda can either let them be, and they can continue, or ask them to move on, and they can do so. What is the chance of them ending up in trouble?

Peregrinus

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

i don't really get you on the injuction. imagine there's 3 people who were doing a silent/peaceful protest, just holding banners outside a business premises, hwile on public land, wearing face masks and not identifiable, it's already been stated that the garda don't get involved, so some random person from the business can come out and give them a piece of paper telling them they need to go to court?

Unless garda get involved, who has the authority to do this, authority enough that the protestors would pay any mind to it? and what would the appliction for injunction state? Something like "to the 3 people standing outside company x premises" ? I can't see how this would hold any water? [/QUOTE]
It doesn’t work quite like that.

There’s a bunch of weirdos picketing my business premises/house/both. They are carrying sign that indicate they have a gripe with me, but no clue about what the grip is. They refuse to go away when asked. They refuse to tell me who they are. I feel various rights of mine are infringed by this behaviour. What do I do?

I head off to my solicitor, and he and I head off to the High Court, where we ask for an injunction addressed to persons unknown, restraining them from watching and besetting my house and business premises. The court grants the injunction on an interim basis, and sets an early date - next Monday, say - for a hearing with both sides present. The injunction is likely addressed to, e.g., “all persons having notice of this injunction”. I then return to my house, and give the picketers copies of the injunction and copies of the papers about next Monday’s court hearing. If they don’t immediately leave I ask the guards to enforce the injunction granted by the court.

The following Monday the pickers turn up in court to explain themselves, explain their gripe, and argue about why they should be allowed to pursue their gripe in the manner chosen, rather than by just suing me. Or, they don’t turn up.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

The following home thing is something i would discourage if somebody was trying to plan this, but the picket outside a premises in a case where the company protesting has good reason for this and has exhausted other avenues, and has been treated unfairly with no compromise offered, I would see as ok.

You might see it as OK, but a court would likely want to know why you hadn’t first tried the obvious alternative of suing me.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

I've seen other pickets where employees are striking, with banners saying "Fair pay now", this would insinuate the business isn't being fair to them, is this not even more defaming than a statement saying "company x regrets doing business with company y" ? Can regret be proven? If the directors of company x claim they regret doing business with company y, is that not proof? I imagine that's easier to prove than what can be considered "fair" pay?

Employees have a relationship with their employer, and there are some statutory protections for an employment dispute. Plus the picket usually arises in the context of a strike, which usually arises where other dispute resolution avenues have already been tried. Plus the employer knows who the employees are. None of these factors are presetn in your scenario.

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

So the banners wouldn't read "I regret" but "company x regrets"... if the people being paid are just there to hold this banner and nothing else, not to engage with anyone, not to shout or discourage anyone entering the business and they would be told not to speak to anyone about the matter too, or maybe they won't even know the details themselves, and the protest is ONLY outside the business premises.

I'm just trying to determine the risk to the people being paid to do the actual protesting, if they aren't individually indentifiable (wearing face masks), simply stand there with a banner that read "Company x regrets doing business with company y", don't engage in any conversations with anyone, or speak anything of the matter to passers by including any protest chants or any of that, only stay outside the business premise and don't follow anyone anywhere and if asked to move on by somebody with authority (Garda or similar) and don't return after such, or if asked what are they doing by Garda or someone with authority, they simply state we're being paid to be here and don't know any more details, and garda can either let them be, and they can continue, or ask them to move on, and they can do so. What is the chance of them ending up in trouble?

If the picket is peaceful, if it doesn’t block access to the premises or impede the passage of people or vehicles along the street, if the signs are not defamatory* or otherwise unlawful and if the picketers leave immediately if invited to do so by the guards, the practical legal risk to them is small. But the practical benefit to them, and to the person who organises and pays for the picket, is even smaller.

* Whether the signs are defamatory is a tricky question to answer in the abstract. Just because they are vague and refrain from making factual assertions does not mean they won’t be defamatory; you can defame somebody by innuendo or by implication. The picketers should get legal advice on the signs before going ahead, and should insist that the person who is paying them to protest pays for this advice. To get advice they’ll need to tell their lawyers the full story - who is paying them, what is the nature of the dispute bewteen that person and the business being protested against, what other steps have been taken to resolve the dispute, and what they think the business being protested against would say about the dispute, if asked. If the picketers don’t know all these details then they should not proceed.

the_syco

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

imagine there's 3 people who were doing a silent/peaceful protest, just holding banners outside a business premises, hwile on public land, wearing face masks and not identifiable, it's already been stated that the garda don't get involved, so some random person from the business can come out and give them a piece of paper telling them they need to go to court?

I wonder can the people inside the business ring the Gardai and say that there's masked men outside their premise intimidating clients/staff?

BattleCorp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I head off to my solicitor, and he and I head off to the High Court, where we ask for an injunction addressed to persons unknown, restraining them from watching and besetting my house and business premises. The court grants the injunction on an interim basis, and sets an early date - next Monday, say - for a hearing with both sides present.

This might seem like a dumb question but if you get an injunction and serve it to persons unknown, how do you prove that it was served?

For example. I am protesting outside of Peregrinus House. Peregrinus goes off and gets the injunction and his representatives serve me with the injunction outside of his house.

Firstly, how is it served. Is it a bit of paper or is it a speech by someone?

Secondly, do I have to sign anything to say I've been served with the injunction.

Thirdly, if I deny I was served with the injunction (if there's no proof) and keep on protesting, what's the next course of action.

How am I in breach of an injunction if it can't be proved that it was served on me?

BattleCorp

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder can the people inside the business ring the Gardai and say that there's masked men outside their premise intimidating clients/staff?

COVID-19. Health conscious protesters. :pac::pac:

Peregrinus

BattleCorp wrote: »

This might seem like a dumb question but if you get an injunction and serve it to persons unknown, how do you prove that it was served?

For example. I am protesting outside of Peregrinus House. Peregrinus goes off and gets the injunction and his representatives serve me with the injunction outside of his house.

Firstly, how is it served. Is it a bit of paper or is it a speech by someone?

It's a bit of paper.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Secondly, do I have to sign anything to say I've been served with the injunction.

Nope.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Thirdly, if I deny I was served with the injunction (if there's no proof) and keep on protesting, what's the next course of action.

How am I in breach of an injunction if it can't be proved that it was served on me?

When I serve you, I make a sworn declaration saying that I have served you. In the circumstances you describe in this hypothetical, there will likely be witnesses who can make a similar declaration. If I think you're really stupid I'll probably have someone film the encounter on a phone.

If you later deny that you were ever served, and give sworn testimony to that effect, the court will be faced with a conflict of evidence, which is not a novel event. The court will weigh up the competing evidence and decide what is most likely to be the truth.

There is little reason for me to lie and say that I have served you. Why would I go to the trouble and expense of getting an injunction against you and then not bother to serve you and instead just lie and say that I did? It's like buying a first-class plane ticket to Australia and then using photoshop to pretend that I went there. So my evidence that I served you is plausible; it's what you would expect to have happened. Whereas your claim that you were never served, and that you were not aware of any injunction, is . . . . surprising.

Add to that the testimony of others who will say that they saw me serve you,and the footage on the mobile phone that shows me serving you, and you're3 in a sticky position. I said earlier that the legal risk to people picketing was initially small. Give perjured evidence about not being served with court papers and the legal risk get much bigger, very quickly.

NeptunesMoon

Cheers for all that :cool:

That's all fair enough about recording the injunction being served and that, but what if the person is unidentifiable and what if they DON'T come back and just ignore the injunction, surely the person serving it can't prove who they are serving it to, ok they can prove an injunction was served to somebody, but not who that somebody is, so I really can't see how anything bad can come about for the protestor if there's no evidence of who they are, if garda won't get involved and ask them for ID, if there's no legal requirement to even carry ID anyway and if the people serving the injunction were to follow them until a time where they took their mask off or were more identifiable, then maybe they could be done for stalking/harrasment ? :pac::pac: Also, even without a mask, they still don't know who the person is other than posting their photo on social media or something and trying to get them ID'd this way or similar, which itself may be crossing some boundaries?

That's fine if the protestors wanted to continue the protest after being served an injunction that they can show up to court and argue why they should be allowed, but if for their own sake, they agreed to do the protest for the business paying them, but that if they were served with an injunction or requested to leave by the garda, that they would not come back to continue the protest again as it is not worth the risk for getting just a daily wage and no stake in whats to gain from the protest itself. Which would be the case with this protest, then I can't see much risk for them?

I guess suing could be seen as a long drawn out and costly process, whereas this could just nudge them into doing what is requested of them sooner.

Thanks for showing the difference between this and an employee strike too!

I guess the practical benefit to the protesters getting paid to do it, is that they get a few days work they wouldn't otherwise have at a fair wage. The benefit to the person paying, well that's another question, will this work at all, it's unknown.

as long as the risk to reward ratio for the people being paid to protest is worth it, then so be it. That's some good advice about proceeding with legal advice paid by the person paying them to protest too.

Is it possible to get group legal advice? Say the few people involved will go to the solicitor of the person paying them, who can advise them as a group on their legal position/risk, or would each person involved have to find their own solicitor and seek independent advice and then seek reimbursement from the person paying them to pay for the consultation? Is that likely to be something that can be advised from one visit to a lawyer or it might take weeks of investigation? What kind of cost would be involved from a solictiror helping each person? What kind of solicitor should they go for? I'm guessing not business law or property or family law or anything, what would be most suitable I wonder?

Peregrinus

Are you suggesting that an employer who employs people in some conventional capacity would threaten to fire them if they refuse his orders to stop attending their usual duties and instead go and picket someone's house while wearing a mask in defiance of an injuction restraining picketing at that house, and adds for good measure 0that if challenged they must tell unbelievable lies about ever having heard of any injunction?

I don't think this is a remotely plausible scenario but, if it were to unfold, that employer has a lot more to worry about than the person whose house is being picketed, and he has landed himself with a whole set of new disputes than will cause him far more trouble, expense and grief than the original dispute that made him decide to mount a picket. He could just shutter his business, fire his workers, and draw all his money out of the bank and set fire to it, and he would then get where he plainly wants to go much more quickly.

NeptunesMoon

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are you suggesting that an employer who employs people in some conventional capacity would threaten to fire them if they refuse his orders to stop attending their usual duties and instead go and picket someone's house while wearing a mask in defiance of an injuction restraining picketing at that house, and adds for good measure 0that if challenged they must tell unbelievable lies about ever having heard of any injunction?

I don't think this is a remotely plausible scenario but, if it were to unfold, that employer has a lot more to worry about than the person whose house is being picketed, and he has landed himself with a whole set of new disputes than will cause him far more trouble, expense and grief than the original dispute that made him decide to mount a picket. He could just shutter his business, fire his workers, and draw all his money out of the bank and set fire to it, and he would then get where he plainly wants to go much more quickly.

I'm not sure where you got the above scenario from? I'm not suggesting that at all.

Firstly if the protesters weren't employees, but contractors instead paid their daily rate, secondly, the idea of going to the house has been shown to be too risky and crossing boundaries which the protesters wouldn't want to do and the person paying them will realise the risk and their wish not to do this. Thirdly, I'm saying that if there is any issue with gards, or injunctions, that from that moment, the protest would cease as the protesters don't want to risk their liberty and end up in court/worse by returning to protest for what is just a daily rate to them. That the person paying them would understand this and not expect more of them .

So basically, if business x gets a few people to protest, and tells them, I'll pay you X to stand outside here for 8 hours a day. You do not need to talk to anyone, you can wear your mask and keep distant from others, I just want you to stand there with a banner or wearing a tshirt with a message that "x business regrets doing business with y business" and that's it. You'll be paid a full day rate for any day you start. If at any stage there is any issue from garda, or any kind of injunction served where you're asked to move on, you are not expected to stay and will be paid for that day in full and have no further obligations to return and continue the protest.


From what's been said above, it seems that scenario I've just described has no risk for the protesters?

Peregrinus

The risk is mainly to their self-respect and dignity, though if they turn up aware that an injuction has been issued they are in conempt of court and there is legal risk for them in that.

But the main point is that it will be an expensive but ineffective protest; starts every morning at 9:00 am; finished by 9:05. And it will be difficult for the employer to keep secret the fact that he is recruiting and paying picketers in an attempt to frustrate the injunction because, really, it is not in the picketers' interests to decline to answer questions about this, and on the whole it is probably in their interests to be open about it. So the legal risk to them may be minimal, but he is headed for Mountjoy.

NeptunesMoon

Cheers again, but you seem adamant that the protest is going to continue after garda or a court injunction has been involved, which of course would heighten the risk for all involved, but this is not the case as nobody would want to push that risk.

I'm trying to gauge the risk to anyone involved for just showing up and as soon as garda or a court injunction come about, then the protest finishes and the protestors do not return, ever. That could be 5 minutes, or that could be 5 days. The protestors will get paid for any day they show up, if they get garda or court injunction on day 1, they don't show up again, it's not like they have to go back day after day to get the money they are owed for the first day.

I can't see them being told to move on by Garda after 5 minutes or a couyrt injunction being issued after 5 minutes either, it would likely last at least a few hours. How effective such a protest would be in achieving the justice they seek, I don't know :pac:

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Peregrinus wrote: »

The risk is mainly to their self-respect and dignity, though if they turn up aware that an injuction has been issued they are in conempt of court and there is legal risk for them in that.

But the main point is that it will be an expensive but ineffective protest; starts every morning at 9:00 am; finished by 9:05. And it will be difficult for the employer to keep secret the fact that he is recruiting and paying picketers in an attempt to frustrate the injunction because, really, it is not in the picketers' interests to decline to answer questions about this, and on the whole it is probably in their interests to be open about it. So the legal risk to them may be minimal, but he is headed for Mountjoy.

Are they considered served if the refuse to accept the piece of paper i.e won't physically take it in their hand?

pale rider

A guy I know did this some years ago, He put hand painted posters up on the sides and back of a really poor looking small Lorry and parked opposite the persons home in a turning area, the person that owed him the money could afford to pay him just wouldn't.

It was a few days before Christmas, a good area, all neighbours home, one asked him to move as the Lorry was an eyesore, he refused, Gardai called by, checked he was taxed/insured and left.

It's a reasonable question despite the high moral ground that some have chosen to take in their replies.

He spent a few days there having family call up with food/drinks, he left it parked opposite the house until after Christmas.

My recollection is that his efforts did not have any real success but can you imagine the conversations inside that house over Christmas and on their road.

Still admire him for doing it, I would not have the neck.

There were no recriminations.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

pale rider wrote: »

A guy I know did this some years ago, He put hand painted posters up on the sides and back of a really poor looking small Lorry and parked opposite the persons home in a turning area, the person that owed him the money could afford to pay him just wouldn't.

It was a few days before Christmas, a good area, all neighbours home, one asked him to move as the Lorry was an eyesore, he refused, Gardai called by, checked he was taxed/insured and left.

It's a reasonable question despite the high moral ground that some have chosen to take in their replies.

He spent a few days there having family call up with food/drinks, he left it parked opposite the house until after Christmas.

My recollection is that his efforts did not have any real success but can you imagine the conversations inside that house over Christmas and on their road.

Still admire him for doing it, I would not have the neck.

There were no recriminations.

I heard a story very similar but it was someone who would not pay for a service when it was done.The person who would not pay was related to someone famous and it was christmas too. Wonder if it is the same case. I did not hear the outcome

pale rider

@kellykelly

Nobody famous in my story, watching UK telly this evening and Don't pay we'll take it away came on, High Court enforcement, have to say a terrific way to collect, we need that here where people who want to delay or obstruct paying do so at will.

I'm from the age where you borrow you pay it back, you get a service you pay for it promptly., I sound so old, I'm not !

Peregrinus

Caspian Spicy Jaguar wrote: »

Are they considered served if the refuse to accept the piece of paper i.e won't physically take it in their hand?

Yes.

Peregrinus

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

Cheers again, but you seem adamant that the protest is going to continue after garda or a court injunction has been involved, which of course would heighten the risk for all involved, but this is not the case as nobody would want to push that risk.

I'm trying to gauge the risk to anyone involved for just showing up and as soon as garda or a court injunction come about, then the protest finishes and the protestors do not return, ever. That could be 5 minutes, or that could be 5 days. The protestors will get paid for any day they show up, if they get garda or court injunction on day 1, they don't show up again, it's not like they have to go back day after day to get the money they are owed for the first day.

I can't see them being told to move on by Garda after 5 minutes or a couyrt injunction being issued after 5 minutes either, it would likely last at least a few hours. How effective such a protest would be in achieving the justice they seek, I don't know :pac:

Oh, OK.

There is negligible risk in turning up at the start of a picket. Wearing a mask, refusing to identify yourself, etc, would increase the risk, but if you are fully co-operative with the guards as soon as they turn up, the risk remains low.

If you turn up on more than one occasion the legal risk is increased, because there is the possiblity of a harrassment charge under Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 s.10. This is especially true if the picket is at somebody's home. If you are part of an organised arrangement whereby the picket is mounted more than once you are at risk, even if you yourself only turn up once - you can commit the harrassment offence in concert with other people. If you are organising the arrangement you are at risk, even if you yourself do not turn up at all.

If you are there only because you are being paid to participate in the picket, I think that's a factor which also increases legal risk. Constitutional arguments which might be available to you regarding freedom of speech and assembly, etc, carry less weight if the picket is in furtherance of a dispute in which you have no interest and about which you have no opinion to express.

Turning up, even once, to a picket that is already the subject of an injunction is signficantly risky, whether or not the injunction is addressed to you or has been served on you.

NeptunesMoon

hey cheers again for that! That all sounds sensible enough in terms of risk increase etc by pursuing the protest after being asked to leave, or ignoring injunctions etc.

So by the looks of it, if it was just the same 2 or 3 people from the start and they complied iwth garda requests, with their masks being for the pandemic :pac: and they left if requested to by garda, or left immediately if an injunction was served to them by someone from the business and never came back again in either case and the protest ended at this point, there's extremely little to no risk of them hearing anything more of it or landing in any kinda trouble?

Peregrinus

NeptunesMoon wrote: »

hey cheers again for that! That all sounds sensible enough in terms of risk increase etc by pursuing the protest after being asked to leave, or ignoring injunctions etc.

So by the looks of it, if it was just the same 2 or 3 people from the start and they complied iwth garda requests, with their masks being for the pandemic :pac: and they left if requested to by garda, or left immediately if an injunction was served to them by someone from the business and never came back again in either case and the protest ended at this point, there's extremely little to no risk of them hearing anything more of it or landing in any kinda trouble?

Yes.

NeptunesMoon

cheers for all the replies on this, been a great help :cool::cool:

Red Hare

You could try picketing outside the garda station nearest the target of your picket. That way your not harassing the business or home of any person. i was given that tip and it worked.

iomusicdublin

From the UK


£63k Range Rover Vogue left outside Erdington dealership Lancaster Land Rover in protest




"I had a fault with my Range Rover Vogue so I called Land Rover assistance because there was a problem with the suspension on my vehicle - my vehicle didn't feel safe."

He claims the car had been with the dealership for 49 days, but none of the problems have allegedly been fixed.

"I walked out of the dealership at 12pm, parked it back on the verge at 1pm with all the signage


Funnily enough ...

The dealership confirmed it was aware of the vehicle and staff were due to meet with the customer to 'agree a way forward'.