Can one be forced to sign a document?

FutureTeashock

I noticed the mandatory 'passenger locator' form requires a signature, which begs the question: can individuals be forced under duress to sign such a form?


I thought any contract is invalid if force is used to sign it?


What if an individual filled out the form but refused to sign the draconian document?

Rodney Bathgate

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I noticed the mandatory 'passenger locator' form requires a signature, which begs the question: can individuals be forced under duress to sign such a form?


I thought any contract is invalid if force is used to sign it?


What if an individual filled out the form but refused to sign the draconian document?

Send them back where they came from.

FutureTeashock

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Send them back where they came from.

An Irish or British citizen cannot be denied entry to the state.

flazio

Would you mind expanding on your description of "draconian"?

Rodney Bathgate

FutureTeashock wrote: »

An Irish or British citizen cannot be denied entry to the state.

You didn’t mention the passport the person was travelled on. In that case, arrest them.

FutureTeashock

flazio wrote: »

Would you mind expanding on your description of "draconian"?

Threatening to fine people 2500 quid for not relinquishing their personal data and coercing them to remain at home for 2 weeks seems pretty draconian to me.


I would be grateful if any legal minds would answer my original question.


Many thanks.:o

FutureTeashock

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

You didn’t mention the passport the person was travelled on. In that case, arrest them.

You can be arrested for not signing a document? That sounds very dodgy to me and highly unlawful.

hullaballoo

You could try and challenge this in the Courts?

Would be interesting to see what unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, empty rhetoric and bogus historical parallels that are not a substitute for facts could be trotted out this time...

Rodney Bathgate

FutureTeashock wrote: »

You can be arrested for not signing a document? That sounds very dodgy to me and highly unlawful.

They are refusing to co-operate with measures implemented in the public interest. What do you think should happen? Let them on their merry way?

FutureTeashock

hullaballoo wrote: »

You could try and challenge this in the Courts?

Would be interesting to see what unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, empty rhetoric and bogus historical parallels that are not a substitute for facts could be trotted out this time...

Oh really?
"If it can be proven that one of the parties that signed the contract was under duress, then the contract can be considered voidable."

https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/can-you-be-forced-into-signing-a-contract/

is_that_so

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I noticed the mandatory 'passenger locator' form requires a signature, which begs the question: can individuals be forced under duress to sign such a form?


I thought any contract is invalid if force is used to sign it?


What if an individual filled out the form but refused to sign the draconian document?

Had this in the UK and was refused permission to board a flight until I signed the green card. I went to DFA on return to complain and they said it's the law of the land. It's the same here - law of the land. You do know it's up for review on 18 June anyway, don't you?

biko

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Threatening to fine people 2500 quid for not relinquishing their personal data and coercing them to remain at home for 2 weeks seems pretty draconian to me.

Fine, don't come here until the virus is gone then.

You may claim an exemption from the need to self-isolate if you're a very important person.

FutureTeashock

Not one answer to my question, just political postulating. sad.:(

Fruks

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Not one answer to my question, just political postulating. sad.:(

The form is a simple, regulatory form and there is no contract involved - I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Think in terms of a driving licence application, passport application, mortgage application. You are under no duress to sign it and by all means can refuse but you should expect in return to be refused admission.

raxy

Considering the government made it a legal requirement than yes they can force you to sign it. It's also a declaration form, not a contract so contract law would not be relevant I would think.

Rodney Bathgate

I assume the OP was at one or more of the blm protests. Sounds like the laws / rules are for the rest of us to follow, but optional for him. Hopefully he won’t be a future Taoiseach.

whippet

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Not one answer to my question, just political postulating. sad.:(

It’s not a contract

So in answer to your question ... it’s not signing a contract under duress.

It is just the signature to confirm that you understand your legal requirements.

You don’t get to choose the laws you wish to obey ... even if you subscribe to the nonsense that people are putting out there.

Marcusm

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Oh really?
"If it can be proven that one of the parties that signed the contract was under duress, then the contract can be considered voidable."

https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/can-you-be-forced-into-signing-a-contract/

How do you consider the completion of a mandatory form on arrival into the State to be a contract. There are no resources allocated for any follow up so the isolating is essentially self-organised. More importantly, if it comes to light that the person who sat near you on the plane for up to 7 hours turns out to be infected, they have your contact details to facilitate you being informed.

Thirdfox

The cocooning has some people stir crazy now...it's the 5G signals in the air I tells ya... edit: :pac: - in case it wasn't obvious (used to be - but we live in such a complicated world now).

rock22

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I assume the OP was at one or more of the blm protests. Sounds like the laws / rules are for the rest of us to follow, but optional for him. Hopefully he won’t be a future Taoiseach.

It is bizarre that you would you try to mix this up with the worldwide protests against the racism.

rom

You are not being forced. Of course you can refuse to do so but you are breaking the law if you do.

Health Act, 1947

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1947/act/28/section/31/enacted/en/html#sec31

31. Regulations for preventing the spread of infectious disease.

"(8) A person who contravenes a regulation under this section or who wilfully obstructs the execution of a regulation under this section or who gives false or misleading information in purported compliance with a request for information made under a regulation made under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction"

Peregrinus

rom wrote: »

You are not being forced. Of course you can refuse to do so but you are breaking the law if you do . . .

I have to say that being subject to a criminal sanction if you don't do X is pretty much the definition of being forced to do X. The criminal law is the main instrument by which the state forces people to do things.

In this case the potential penalty is a fine of €2,500 or imprisonment for 6 months or both. So, not trivial.

The obligation under the regulations is to "complete" the passenger locator form. As the form includes a section for signature, you could argue that if that section is left blank the form is not "completed". However as the information required to fill that section - your name - also appears in other sections, I think it could be argued that if you fill out the form except for signing it, you have substantially completed it, and a prosecution for not completing it would be, um, problematic.

As others have said, signing the form does not turn it it into a contract, or give it any additional effect or validity that it wouldn't have, if unsigned. The form is purely an information-gathering mechanism. The information is used for contact-tracing. If you are subject to an obligation, or advised, to isolate yourself, you don't escape the obligation/advice by failing to complete or sign the form; it still applies to you.

Esel

A friend of mine always signs his name in block capitals, even though he is not a Freeman.

seamus

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Oh really?
"If it can be proven that one of the parties that signed the contract was under duress, then the contract can be considered voidable."

https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/can-you-be-forced-into-signing-a-contract/

Signing something doesn't make it a contract.

The purpose of your signature on this form is for confirmation that it was you who filled it out, or are aware that it was filled out and that it wasn't done on your behalf without your knowledge.

Failure to sign it, is a failure to complete the form, which is an offence.

micosoft

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Oh really?
"If it can be proven that one of the parties that signed the contract was under duress, then the contract can be considered voidable."

https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/can-you-be-forced-into-signing-a-contract/

You aren't even wrong. These things are hard when you make a fundamentally wrong assumption that people are being asked to sign a contract. They aren't. They are being asked to make a declaration. And the government is perfectly entitled to demand people sign declarations whether it is your tax declaration or a declaration that your car is off the road. If you decline to sign said declaration the government is entitled to take action.

FutureTeashock

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to say that being subject to a criminal sanction if you don't do X is pretty much the definition of being forced to do X. The criminal law is the main instrument by which the state forces people to do things.

In this case the potential penalty is a fine of €2,500 or imprisonment for 6 months or both. So, not trivial.

The obligation under the regulations is to "complete" the passenger locator form. As the form includes a section for signature, you could argue that if that section is left blank the form is not "completed". However as the information required to fill that section - your name - also appears in other sections, I think it could be argued that if you fill out the form except for signing it, you have substantially completed it, and a prosecution for not completing it would be, um, problematic.

As others have said, signing the form does not turn it it into a contract, or give it any additional effect or validity that it wouldn't have, if unsigned. The form is purely an information-gathering mechanism. The information is used for contact-tracing. If you are subject to an obligation, or advised, to isolate yourself, you don't escape the obligation/advice by failing to complete or sign the form; it still applies to you.

I will use this approach: fill the form but not sign it. If contacted, I will decline to comply and state I never signed the form and therefore clearly do not consent. Job done!:o

Esel

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I will use this approach: fill the form but not sign it. If contacted, I will decline to comply and state I never signed the form and therefore clearly do not consent. Job done!:o

Freeman of the land?

Peregrinus

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I will use this approach: fill the form but not sign it. If contacted, I will decline to comply and state I never signed the form and therefore clearly do not consent. Job done!:o

The form is not a consent form. Even if you do sign it, you have not consented to anything. You are not being asked to consent to anything. I am not entirely sure what it is you think you are not consenting to but, whatever it is, most probably nobody cares whether you consent to it or not.

whippet

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I will use this approach: fill the form but not sign it. If contacted, I will decline to comply and state I never signed the form and therefore clearly do not consent. Job done!:o

I ain’t no legal type guy but as far as I know consent has nothing to do with legislation. It’s a fiction in the heads of certain groups of people

FutureTeashock

Esel wrote: »

Freeman of the land?

I am a man, I am free, and I'm currently on the land, so I guess I am what you suggest.


I don't know much about the Freeman thing but it's something that interests me

FutureTeashock

Peregrinus wrote: »

The form is not a consent form. Even if you do sign it, you have not consented to anything. You are not being asked to consent to anything. I am not entirely sure what it is you think you are not consenting to but, whatever it is, most probably nobody cares whether you consent to it or not.

If the signature wasn't important, it wouldn't be on the form. Simple.

Peregrinus

FutureTeashock wrote: »

If the signature wasn't important, it wouldn't be on the form. Simple.

What makes you think that? Trust me, an awful lot of very trivial things turn up on forms.

And, more to the point, what makes you think that, if the signature is important, its importance lies in the fact that it signfies your consent to something?

As a matter of interest, have you read the form? Can you point to the bit where you think it says you are consenting to something?

whippet

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I am a man, I am free, and I'm currently on the land, so I guess I am what you suggest.


I don't know much about the Freeman thing but it's something that interests me

I’m sure it does

There is a full thread on here dedicated to it .. plenty of reading in it for you

Lmklad

Peregrinus wrote: »

What makes you think that? Trust me, an awful lot of very trivial things turn up on forms.

And, more to the point, what makes you think that, if the signature is important, its importance lies in the fact that it signfies your consent to something?

As a matter of interest, have you read the form? Can you point to the bit where you think it says you are consenting to something?

I would suggest the signature is confirmation that the information filled out on the form is correct at that by signing your name to it you acknowledge that fact.

As the OP confirmed in a post by not signing the form he could later deny the information on it.

This is not a contract but it is a condition of entering the country, like having a visa (if appropriate or similar to the visa waiver scheme operated by many countries) and valid passport etc. The new form is well advertised and if the OP disagrees then he is not required to travel, if he wishes to travel then he must comply with the requirements of the destination.

As previously stated the OP had to sign for a passport. I’d suggest as he phrased the initial comment as a “contract” and a later post mentioning “consent” that the OP is of the “no contract no consent” brigade. (Also assuming the poster is a he but insert she if required!)

con747

You should give Gemma and John a call about this.

bmc58

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Threatening to fine people 2500 quid for not relinquishing their personal data and coercing them to remain at home for 2 weeks seems pretty draconian to me.


I would be grateful if any legal minds would answer my original question.


Many thanks.:o

Well if you came home from Brazil you would be concerned dodgy.

FutureTeashock

Interestingly, if I am forced to sign the form, I can ad "V.C.", which shows I was coerced and I could use this at a later time to send the contact tracers packing.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi_coactus

whippet

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Interestingly, if I am forced to sign the form, I can ad "V.C.", which shows I was coerced and I could use this at a later time to send the contact tracers packing.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi_coactus

no .. 'cos the requirement to self isolate and provide the whereabouts is covered under legislation - not according to your whim or fantasy

FutureTeashock

whippet wrote: »

no .. 'cos the requirement to self isolate and provide the whereabouts is covered under legislation - not according to your whim or fantasy

Yes, 'cos' acts and statutes can only be enforced with consent, and I do not consent in any way. Snip

Wuff Wuff

Ah I remember the last one of these... Was about making people communicate with you in Irish wasn't it OP?

Just sign the form and get on with your day

FutureTeashock

Wuff Wuff wrote: »

Ah I remember the last one of these... Was about making people communicate with you in Irish wasn't it OP?

Just sign the form and get on with your day

No. Or should I say, "níl".:o

FutureTeashock

FutureTeashock wrote: »

No. Or should I say, "níl".:o

Actually, having seen the form, I don't see any Irish on the form. Could I not refuse to sign it because it's not in both languages as per the Irish language act?

Wuff Wuff

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Actually, having seen the form, I don't see any Irish on the form. Could I not refuse to sign it because it's not in both languages as per the Irish language act?

No proceed with your violence option and report back with how you get on 😉

FutureTeashock

Wuff Wuff wrote: »

No proceed with your violence option and report back with how you get on ��

Looking at the state of the average Garda, I suspect pretty well.

con747

A post from the OP in October "Thanks for your reply. I want to learn Irish so I can access state services and deal with the police in Irish, so it's purely for practical purposes.



It really is pathetic that Irish people spend 10 years learning a language yet can't speak it on even a basic level. But I guess the average IQ in Ireland is only 93...


Since there doesn't appear to be any Pimsleur style courses, I think I'll just learn 5 new Irish words a day and go from there" How is the 5 words going?

Peregrinus

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Actually, having seen the form, I don't see any Irish on the form. Could I not refuse to sign it because it's not in both languages as per the Irish language act?

Irish and English language versions of the form are both available. The legislation imposing the obligation to complete the form sets out the form in both languages.

Peregrinus

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Yes, 'cos' acts and statutes can only be enforced with consent, and I do not consent in any way. Violence will be used as required.

Ah, there's your problem. The notion that "acts and statutes can only be enforced with consent" is, um, mistaken. I don't know who told you this and I don't know why you chose to put your faith in what he said, but you should stop listening to him immediately because he makes you look a bit dim, which is probably not the look you are reaching for.

You can add "V.C." to your signature on the form if you like. It will have no effect whatsoever on your legal rights or obligations but, if it give you any personal gratification, go for it.

CrabRevolution

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Yes, 'cos' acts and statutes can only be enforced with consent, and I do not consent in any way. Violence will be used as required.

So people can only be charged and prosecuted for a crime if the offender themselves consents to being charged and prosecuted?

I can only assume you're taking the p*ss because nobody could genuinely believe something so preposterous.

Following your "logic" I've never signed a document explicitly stating I will not steal or murder; does this give me an exemption from the law?

FutureTeashock

Four pages in and no concrete answer to the fundamental question: "Can one be forced to sign a document?"

I will not consent to signing this form so there is little that can be done.



Acts and statutes, especially those introduced by unelected governments, are worthless and I shall henceforth not comply in any way.

FutureTeashock

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, there's your problem. The notion that "acts and statutes can only be enforced with consent" is, um, mistaken. I don't know who told you this and I don't know why you chose to put your faith in what he said, but you should stop listening to him immediately because he makes you look a bit dim, which is probably not the look you are reaching for.

You can add "V.C." to your signature on the form if you like. It will have no effect whatsoever on your legal rights or obligations but, if it give you any personal gratification, go for it.

The Freeman-on-the-land movement (also freemen-of-the-land, the freemen movement or simply freemen) is a loose group of individuals who believe that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own interpretation of "common law"

con747

Your posts remind me of a few other threads of a similar type. Can you not go back into hibernation please or just put your "plan" into action and see how you get on.