What should you do when arrested!

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

GM228 wrote: »

No, by a convicted murderer - Barry Doyle.

OK i see that is to do with having the solicitor present at his qeustioning.That does not happen in Ireland, does it?

GM228

Henrik Agreeable Smoothness wrote: »

OK i see that is to do with having the solicitor present at his qeustioning.That does not happen in Ireland, does it?

It can, it was an Irish Supreme Court case.

Samuel T. Cogley

Henrik Agreeable Smoothness wrote: »

OK i see that is to do with having the solicitor present at his qeustioning.That does not happen in Ireland, does it?

Sometimes they will sit in on an interview, yes.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

GM228 wrote: »

It was an Irish Supreme Court case.

I see that. Just looking at Garda Powers the possibility of inference on silence applies to all arrestable offences. Can corroborate but cannot convict alone
I'd still stay silent

GM228

Henrik Agreeable Smoothness wrote: »

I see that. Just looking at Garda Powers the possibility of inference on silence applies to all arrestable offences. Can corroborate but cannot convict alone
I'd still stay silent

That's correct because there is an inference drawing provision for such under S19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, however, it only applies to an inference on your whereabouts and no othet aspects of the alleged offence.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

GM228 wrote: »

That's correct because there is an inference drawing provision for such under S19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, however, it only applies to an inference when you fail to account for your whereabouts, to account for objects and failure to mention particular facts and no othet aspects of the alleged offence.

Also applies if you have substance /marks on clothing/footwear/person

GM228

Henrik Agreeable Smoothness wrote: »

Also applies if you have substance /marks on clothing/footwear/person

Correct, I edited before your reply.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Wonder what would have happened if Barry Doyle had stayed silent

RebelButtMunch

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

What if you don't have or know a solicitor?
How would you go about picking a suitable one?

I think someone answered that. There will be a duty solicitor or your family can ring one

Sierra Oscar

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

What if you don't have or know a solicitor?
How would you go about picking a suitable one?

The station will have a list of solicitors available if you do not have one. You'll be shown the list and asked to choose one.

Richmond Ultra

baalad wrote: »

Is the onus on you to request to speak to a solicitor or does the guard have a duty to give you that option?

I was arrested last year around midnight but i was clueless as i had never been in trouble before so it never occurred to me to ask for a solicitor because 1, i did not know / have a solicitor and 2, it was so late that surely i can't just ring one after midnight and expect him to come to my aid when i never spoke to the guy before in my life and 3, i have no idea what this is going to cost me.

Plus my phone was taken off me so i was not allowed contact anyone which caused my parter a lot of anxiety because she thought i was dead because she did not get a response from me in 3 hours haha

Regulation 8.1/8.2 of the criminal justice, prisoner in custody in a Garda Siochana station, act, 1987. You get the sheets of paper explaining why you were arrested, ability to contact a solicitor and if over the age of 18 contact an adult as long as it won't deter the investigation. I.e can't contact a co-accussed during interview etc.

baalad

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The station will have a list of solicitors available if you do not have one. You'll be shown the list and asked to choose one.

Are they obliged to let you know this?

I was never offered an opportunity to call a solicitor. My phone was taken off me once i arrived to the station. Now in truth i never requested a solicitor so maybe it was up to me to request one but it was my first time in trouble and i hadn't a clue what to do. Never used a solicitor before and i would of thought i would be waisting my time trying to contact one at almost 1am let alone i would of needed to know what it was going to cost me etc

I would be clueless when it comes to knowing my rights and as someone that suffers with anxiety. I remember just being nervous because it was unknown territory to me and whilst the guards were reasonably friendly with me, i still found myself intimidated and as a result i just wanted to co-operate and get out of there but it was a big mistake.

I said some stupid **** that arguably made my case worse! You live and learn

baalad

Richmond Ultra wrote: »

Regulation 8.1/8.2 of the criminal justice, prisoner in custody in a Garda Siochana station, act, 1984. You get the sheets of paper explaining why you were arrested, ability to contact a solicitor and if over the age of 18 contact an adult as long as it won't deter the investigation. I.e can't contact a co-accussed during interview etc.

Im probably clutching at straws here but if one wasn't given these 'sheets of paper' and if your phone was taken off you.

Would that be enough for a judge to throw the case out?

No idea how you would go about proven it but i certainly was never offered any sheets of paper or offered to call a solicitor nor family member etc

I had my phone confiscated. I don't recall them explaining to me why i wasn't allowed have my phone either but i asked for it at one point so i could let my partner know i was safe and inform her of the situation and i was told by a different guard "I will give you your phone in a minute if i can but i can't have you using it for long because your not supposed to have it" The other guard returned in the meantime and i never got my phone back until after i gave blood and was leaving the station. No idea how i would prove this though!

Richmond Ultra

baalad wrote: »

Im probably clutching at straws here but if one wasn't given these 'sheets of paper' and if your phone was taken off you.

Would that be enough for a judge to throw the case out?

No idea how you would go about proven it but i certainly was never offered any sheets of paper or offered to call a solicitor nor family member etc

I had my phone confiscated. I don't recall them explaining to me why i wasn't allowed have my phone either but i asked for it at one point so i could let my partner know i was safe and inform her of the situation and i was told by a different guard "I will give you your phone in a minute if i can but i can't have you using it for long because your not supposed to have it" The other guard returned in the meantime and i never got my phone back until after i gave blood and was leaving the station. No idea how i would prove this though!

You sign the custody record to acknowledge receipt of the sheets.

ThewhiteJesus

say nothing for as long as you can, they are never on your side no matter what they say they just want an easy collar.

An Ri rua

Cyanide tablet. The game is up. You ran a good race.

Stephen Gawking

baalad wrote: »

Im probably clutching at straws here but if one wasn't given these 'sheets of paper' and if your phone was taken off you.

Would that be enough for a judge to throw the case out?

No idea how you would go about proven it but i certainly was never offered any sheets of paper or offered to call a solicitor nor family member etc

I had my phone confiscated. I don't recall them explaining to me why i wasn't allowed have my phone either but i asked for it at one point so i could let my partner know i was safe and inform her of the situation and i was told by a different guard "I will give you your phone in a minute if i can but i can't have you using it for long because your not supposed to have it" The other guard returned in the meantime and i never got my phone back until after i gave blood and was leaving the station. No idea how i would prove this though!

They're obliged to inform you of your right to legal counsel & give you a sheet summarising why you have been arrested, your rights etc. but they quite often don't because they know how to spot new fish. You'll never prove they didn't offer you any of this. All interviews are taped so never ever waive your right to counsel.

Most people who haven't been through the process more than once assume that its like an episode Law & Order; its not. Even if you've nothing to hide you have nothing to lose by exercising your rights. Google the name Dean Lyons, ended up being brushed under the carpet.

Sierra Oscar

baalad wrote: »

Are they obliged to let you know this?

I was never offered an opportunity to call a solicitor. My phone was taken off me once i arrived to the station. Now in truth i never requested a solicitor so maybe it was up to me to request one but it was my first time in trouble and i hadn't a clue what to do. Never used a solicitor before and i would of thought i would be waisting my time trying to contact one at almost 1am let alone i would of needed to know what it was going to cost me etc

I would be clueless when it comes to knowing my rights and as someone that suffers with anxiety. I remember just being nervous because it was unknown territory to me and whilst the guards were reasonably friendly with me, i still found myself intimidated and as a result i just wanted to co-operate and get out of there but it was a big mistake.

I said some stupid **** that arguably made my case worse! You live and learn

They'll have read through the C72 'Information for Persons in Custody' with you in which it is outlined that you are entitled to contact a solicitor. You can sign the Custody Record to acknowledge receipt of this information, but you don't have to. They'll also have outlined your right to contact a solicitor and reasonably named person in accordance with Regulation 8(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 (Treatment of Persons in Custody) Regulations, 1987 & 2006.

If you indicate that you want to contact a solicitor you'll be asked for the details. It's if you are unable to provide any details that you will be offered a list of solicitors to choose from. They won't provide you with any such list unless you look for one.

baalad

Richmond Ultra wrote: »

You sign the custody record to acknowledge receipt of the sheets.

Interesting. The only paper i signed was the form consenting to give blood and that failure to do so would result in a 5000 euro fine

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

They'll have read through the C72 'Information for Persons in Custody' with you in which it is outlined that you are entitled to contact a solicitor. You can sign the Custody Record to acknowledge receipt of this information, but you don't have to. They'll also have outlined your right to contact a solicitor and reasonably named person in accordance with Regulation 8(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 (Treatment of Persons in Custody) Regulations, 1987 & 2006.

If you indicate that you want to contact a solicitor you'll be asked for the details. It's if you are unable to provide any details that you will be offered a list of solicitors to choose from. They won't provide you with any such list unless you look for one.

Since rest and sleep is not counted when calculating the time one can be held, what would happen if you just dozed off in the chair while being questioned?

baalad

So i had my phone taken off me and was never given anything to sign in relation to being offered the right to a solicitor but it doesn't matter cause i will never be able to prove it??

FML

Sierra Oscar

Henrik Agreeable Smoothness wrote: »

Since rest and sleep is not counted when calculating the time one can be held, what would happen if you just dozed off in the chair while being questioned?

Falling asleep while being interviewed?

Well I can't imagine it will look good when your defence is being questioned while on trial. The prosecution will be able to demonstrate that you were afforded your statutory periods of rest and I'd imagine your actions would be construed as being obstructionist. Plays right into the hands of the prosecution, to be honest.

Also I think people misunderstand the general purpose of being interviewed while detained. Generally, the Gardaí already have a fairly good picture of the case by the time you are being interviewed. The purpose of an interview is to allow Gardaí to put certain allegations to you and for you to respond to those allegations. Your response, or lack thereof, to those allegations is admissible in evidence. If you fail to answer the allegations that are put to you then it does not play well for you once court proceedings begin. It looks even worse if you rely on a defence in court which you failed to mention while being interviewed.

Essentially Gardaí use interviews to get your response to certain allegations down on paper as hard evidence. They are used to close off lines of defence which may be relied on in court.

Sure, sometimes people break in interview and facts are obtained which steer the investigation in a new direction. However in reality for most cases interviews are just a formality so that your defence can't claim that you weren't given the opportunity to give an alternative account of the facts that are steering the investigation at a certain point in time. Gardaí really do not care when you go all silent in interview. It plays to their advantage and shows in court that you had nothing alternative to add to their interpretation of the investigation.

Of course the other side of the coin is that in many cases for serial repeat offenders involved in fairly low-level incidents (thefts, criminal damage, burglaries and so on) they will take ownership of the incident in interview. Probably because they know by now that if they are being interviewed they are probably already fairly nailed, so it plays to their advantage to just put their hands up. It'll be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Falling asleep while being interviewed?

Well I can't imagine it will look good when your defence is being questioned while on trial. The prosecution will be able to demonstrate that you were afforded your statutory periods of rest and I'd imagine your actions would be construed as being obstructionist. Plays right into the hands of the prosecution, to be honest.

Also I think people misunderstand the general purpose of being interviewed while detained. Generally, the Gardaí already have a fairly good picture of the case by the time you are being interviewed. The purpose of an interview is to allow Gardaí to put certain allegations to you and for you to respond to those allegations. Your response, or lack thereof, to those allegations is admissible in evidence. If you fail to answer the allegations that are put to you then it does not play well for you once court proceedings begin. It looks even worse if you rely on a defence in court which you failed to mention while being interviewed.

Essentially Gardaí use interviews to get your response to certain allegations down on paper as hard evidence. They are used to close off lines of defence which may be relied on in court.

Sure, sometimes people break in interview and facts are obtained which steer the investigation in a new direction. However in reality for most cases interviews are just a formality so that your defence can't claim that you weren't given the opportunity to give an alternative account of the facts that are steering the investigation at a certain point in time. Gardaí really do not care when you go all silent in interview. It plays to their advantage and shows in court that you had nothing alternative to add to their interpretation of the investigation.

Of course the other side of the coin is that in many cases for serial repeat offenders involved in fairly low-level incidents (thefts, criminal damage, burglaries and so on) they will take ownership of the incident in interview. Probably because they know by now that if they are being interviewed they are probably already fairly nailed, so it plays to their advantage to just put your hands up. It'll be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

you are not obliged to speak or answer questions and cannot be convicted on that alone.Why should you not rest? you are not obliged to co operate or respond to their closing off questions

Generally, the Gardaí already have a fairly good picture of the case by the time you are being interviewed

and by answering you give them enough to hang you

Sierra Oscar

Henrik Agreeable Smoothness wrote: »

you are not obliged to speak or answer questions and cannot be convicted on that alone.Why should you not rest? you are not obliged to co operate or respond to their closing off questions

You're perfectly entitled to have a nap in interview if you want. You're deluded if you think the prosecution will not try and portray that you are being anything but obstructionist in nature.

I've never said you will be convicted on the basis of the interview alone. If anything I think my above reply shows that interviews are often a mere formality. Really doesn't bother or annoy Gardaí what you do or don't say. Legally speaking an interview under detention is mainly about facilitating you in responding to allegations that Gardaí are putting to you. If you choose not to then that's your prerogative. Again though, the prosecution will rightly highlight that you had the opportunity to set out a particular defence in interview and failed to do so if you are now relying on that defence while in court.

Henrik Agreeable Smoothness wrote: »

and by answering you give them enough to hang you

Sure, to be honest the Gardaí are just more concerned about ticking the box that needs to be ticked in regards giving someone the opportunity to respond to allegations before being charged. That box is well and firmly ticked with a 'no comment' interview. In that case you've nothing to add to the case the Gardaí are compiling against you.

baalad

In my case i was specifically given false legal advice. I was told the cannabis limit was zero and that i would be given a 12 month ban but would only do 6 months because i could appeal it as it was a first time offence.

I was not given any sheets of paper regarding my right to a solicitor so therefore the only legal advice i received was that coming from the guard who gave me incorrect legal advice.

When interviewed i was told to apologise for what i had done so that the judge would go easy on me and like a fool i went along and gave the guard everything he wanted. Some of the words being wrote down were not even mine, they were his.

I have private messages from the same guard at a later date suddenly doing a u-turn and saying i would receive at least 2 years but possibly 4!

I only received proper legal advice when i got my blood results and a solicitor told me that i was unlucky to be over by only 1 nanogram and that i would receive 12 months ban. Apparently you can appeal your ban but only if you receive MORE then 12 months as 12 months is the minimum you must serve. I was also told that the guard was wrong about the limit being set at zero.

Moral of the story is don't believe a word the guards tell you and do not open your mouth without a solicitor present!

ohnonotgmail

baalad wrote: »

In my case i was specifically given false legal advice. I was told the cannabis limit was zero and that i would be given a 12 month ban but would only do 6 months because i could appeal it as it was a first time offence.

I was not given any sheets of paper regarding my right to a solicitor so therefore the only legal advice i received was that coming from the guard who gave me incorrect legal advice.

When interviewed i was told to apologise for what i had done so that the judge would go easy on me and like a fool i went along and gave the guard everything he wanted. Some of the words being wrote down were not even mine, they were his.

I have private messages from the same guard at a later date suddenly doing a u-turn and saying i would receive at least 2 years but possibly 4!

I only received proper legal advice when i got my blood results and a solicitor told me that i was unlucky to be over by only 1 nanogram and that i would receive 12 months ban. Apparently you can appeal your ban but only if you receive MORE then 12 months as 12 months is the minimum you must serve. I was also told that the guard was wrong about the limit being set at zero.

Moral of the story is don't believe a word the guards tell you and do not open your mouth without a solicitor present!

guards dont give legal advice.

baalad

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

guards dont give legal advice.

Correct but i read online of a similar case where a guy had no solicitor present and the guard had given false information. The court was challenged on the grounds that the only legal advice available to the defendant was that , coming from the guard and he was incorrectly informed.

No idea if he won or lost the case but i thought it was interesting that the solicitor was challenging the court on this.

BuzzMcdonnell

baalad wrote: »

In my case i was specifically given false legal advice. I was told the cannabis limit was zero and that i would be given a 12 month ban but would only do 6 months because i could appeal it as it was a first time offence.

I was not given any sheets of paper regarding my right to a solicitor so therefore the only legal advice i received was that coming from the guard who gave me incorrect legal advice.

When interviewed i was told to apologise for what i had done so that the judge would go easy on me and like a fool i went along and gave the guard everything he wanted. Some of the words being wrote down were not even mine, they were his.

I have private messages from the same guard at a later date suddenly doing a u-turn and saying i would receive at least 2 years but possibly 4!

I only received proper legal advice when i got my blood results and a solicitor told me that i was unlucky to be over by only 1 nanogram and that i would receive 12 months ban. Apparently you can appeal your ban but only if you receive MORE then 12 months as 12 months is the minimum you must serve. I was also told that the guard was wrong about the limit being set at zero.

Moral of the story is don't believe a word the guards tell you and do not open your mouth without a solicitor present!

Ya have given a fairly different version of this story in your other thread.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

You're perfectly entitled to have a nap in interview if you want. You're deluded if you think the prosecution will not try and portray that you are being anything but obstructionist in nature.

I've never said you will be convicted on the basis of the interview alone. If anything I think my above reply shows that interviews are often a mere formality. Really doesn't bother or annoy Gardaí what you do or don't say. Legally speaking an interview under detention is mainly about facilitating you in responding to allegations that Gardaí are putting to you. If you choose not to then that's your prerogative. Again though, the prosecution will rightly highlight that you had the opportunity to set out a particular defence in interview and failed to do so if you are now relying on that defence while in court.



Sure, to be honest the Gardaí are just more concerned about ticking the box that needs to be ticked in regards giving someone the opportunity to respond to allegations before being charged. That box is well and firmly ticked with a 'no comment' interview. In that case you've nothing to add to the case the Gardaí are compiling against you.

refusing to comment is a right and not an obstruction. interviews are not a mere formality. many are in jail who would be free had they kept their mouths shut in interviews.I have a book detailing some from before 1984 act when people were foolish enought to 'help gardai with their enquiries' and were imprisoned even though they were illegally detained and/or questioned

Gardaí really do not care when you go all silent in interview.

that's why they play their amateur games to get people to talk. Pretending interest in the suspect's interest, or playing to their ego ha ha

MrMusician18

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Falling asleep while being interviewed?

Well I can't imagine it will look good when your defence is being questioned while on trial. The prosecution will be able to demonstrate that you were afforded your statutory periods of rest and I'd imagine your actions would be construed as being obstructionist. Plays right into the hands of the prosecution, to be honest.

Also I think people misunderstand the general purpose of being interviewed while detained. Generally, the Gardaí already have a fairly good picture of the case by the time you are being interviewed. The purpose of an interview is to allow Gardaí to put certain allegations to you and for you to respond to those allegations. Your response, or lack thereof, to those allegations is admissible in evidence. If you fail to answer the allegations that are put to you then it does not play well for you once court proceedings begin. It looks even worse if you rely on a defence in court which you failed to mention while being interviewed.

Essentially Gardaí use interviews to get your response to certain allegations down on paper as hard evidence. They are used to close off lines of defence which may be relied on in court.

Sure, sometimes people break in interview and facts are obtained which steer the investigation in a new direction. However in reality for most cases interviews are just a formality so that your defence can't claim that you weren't given the opportunity to give an alternative account of the facts that are steering the investigation at a certain point in time. Gardaí really do not care when you go all silent in interview. It plays to their advantage and shows in court that you had nothing alternative to add to their interpretation of the investigation.

Of course the other side of the coin is that in many cases for serial repeat offenders involved in fairly low-level incidents (thefts, criminal damage, burglaries and so on) they will take ownership of the incident in interview. Probably because they know by now that if they are being interviewed they are probably already fairly nailed, so it plays to their advantage to just put their hands up. It'll be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Of course they care. I can think of one recent murder trial where the defendant was hung on his own words whilst being interviewed.

If he has said nothing he would've never even stood trial. They had nothing on him.