Gardai not responding to request for info needed to commence a civil case, what next?

BingCrosbee

I know of a case in the midlands where a man reporting for a local newspaper at a funeral got a severe beating by a local gouger and nothing is going to be done about it. The local Sargeant saw it happening. This is Ireland 2021.

Ash.J.Williams

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Gardai have a chain of command so no, super wouldn't be emailed and he wouldn't be a cc on internal mail unless the garda is an idiot

Exactly that’s why the op is getting nowhere

54and56

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Exactly that’s why the op is getting nowhere

Ah, it's a long road that has no turn.

I'll keep chipping away until I find a way to hold the vandal accountable for the cost of the damage.

€2,000 in tax paid money takes a while to earn, I'm not inclined to just roll over and write it off because it's too hard or too frustrating to pursue.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

This article indicates parents are liable for the torts of their children -
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/measures-to-tackle-juvenile-crime-by-holding-parents-liable-not-being-used-1.943158

“The Children Act 2001 was widely praised as a piece of ground-breaking legislation when it was enacted and there was a particular welcome for new powers which were designed to prevent parents from abdicating responsibility for criminal or anti-social behaviour carried out by their children,” Ms O’Sullivan added.

Whether the parents / guardians are liable or the juveniles are liable I still need the contact details to commence a civil case.

Or is it possible that in Irish law no one is liable, regardless of the cost of damage caused, if a juvenile admits their guilt and partakes in the Youth Diversion Programme? That would be completely inequitable to the victim.

That article indicates parents can be liable subject to qualification (the willful failure of the parent or guardian to take care of or to control the child and it contributed to the child’s criminal behavior), not that they are liable, and it is just a restatement of a 112 year old law which has never been tested.

As has been stated parents are not ordinarily responsible for their childs actions save for S113 of the act and a few small common law exceptions.

Even if you wanted to test S113 it is not possible to do once the child has been admitted to the diversion programme.

54and56 wrote: »

I'll keep chipping away until I find a way to hold the vandal accountable for the cost of the damage.

The only way to do it is to either get the legislation changed (with a retrospective provision which is next to impossible) or somehow go against previous rulings of the highest court in the land.

54and56

blueythebear wrote: »

OP is wasting his or her time here. There is no onus on the gardai to provide you with the information you are seeking.

Maybe not but the www.victimscharter.ie states the following which doesn't square with your assertion:-

blueythebear wrote: »

You have a fundamental issue here shich has your case doomed from the outset. You cannot obtain judgment against a minor (for what thats worth) and it will be next to impossible to prove that yhe parents have any liability for the actions of their child.

Maybe you're right but I'm happy to exhaust the process to a point where the state/justice system officially tells me it cannot hold either the juvenile vandal or his parents liable for the €2,000 in damage he inflicted and that I just have to suck it up. At least at that point I'll have exhausted the state justice process(s) and can then use that inequitable outcome to bang the drum and seek legislative reform.

blueythebear wrote: »

On a practical note, you are also escalating matters between you and this child, dragging their parents into it. Its likely to only escalate matters. Be thankful the child has been caught and dealt with by the gardai, even if it seems lenient.

I disagree. Holding someone to financial account for their actions doesn't escalate things, it brings closure for all parties.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

Maybe not but the www.victimscharter.ie states the following which doesn't square with your assertion:-

How does that not square with the posters assertion? It deals with "legal rights to information", there is no legal right to the information you seek, in fact if you were given that information the Guard would be breaking the law, it is a criminal offence to give you the information you want.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

That article indicates parents can be liable subject to qualification (the willful failure of the parent or guardian to take care of or to control the child and it contributed to the child’s criminal behavior), not that they are liable, and it is just a restatement of a 112 year old law which has never been tested.

As has been stated parents are not ordinarily responsible for their childs actions save for S113 of the act and a few small common law exceptions.

Even if you wanted to test S113 it is not possible to do once the child has been admitted to the diversion programme.





The only way to do it is to either get the legislation changed (with a retrospective provision which is next to impossible) or somehow go against previous rulings of the highest court in the land.

Thanks GM228, appreciate your insight.

I have one question.

Your reference to testing S113 not being possible once the child has been admitted to the diversion programme.

Does that conflate the criminal justice system (which I know I have no influence over or recourse to) to the civil law system? Are you saying once someone (whether a minor or not) is dealt with in the criminal justice system the victim of that persons criminal activity is prohibited from seeking recompense via the civil courts? If true wouldn't someone paralysed by a criminally convicted reckless driver be prohibited from seeking compensation in the civil courts?

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

How does that not square with the posters assertion? It deals with "legal rights to information", there is no legal right to the information you seek, in fact it is a criminal offence to give you the information you want.

That's the essence of what I'm testing.

Presumably victims of drunk drivers etc are provided with details of the drunk driver by AGS so they can be sued for compensation etc.

In my case there's a juvenlie involved. I still have the right to bring a civil case but the identity of the juvenile and/or his parents is being shielded from me by AGS.

I get that juveniles need protection (often from themselves!!) but it shouldn't be at the total cost of my ability to pursue a civil case to recover the cost of the damage they have admitted inflicting. That seems totally inequitable.

If I'm not entitled to the contact details of the juvenile or his parents I just want the Youth Diversion Superintendent to confirm that in writing to me so I can try to pursue another avenue to issue the juvenile with a civil writ.

Despite signing for my registered letter requesting this info, with supporting docs etc, in January I still haven't had the courtesy of a response which definitely doesn't square with the commitments made by AGS in the victims charter.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

Thanks GM228, appreciate your insight.

I have one question.

Your reference to testing S113 not being possible once the child has been admitted to the diversion programme.

Does that conflate the criminal justice system (which I know I have no influence over or recourse to) to the civil law system? Are you saying once someone (whether a minor or not) is dealt with in the criminal justice system the victim of that persons criminal activity is prohibited from seeking recompense via the civil courts? If true wouldn't someone paralysed by a criminally convicted reckless driver be prohibited from seeking compensation in the civil courts?

I am talking specifically in relation to S113 which is applicable to a criminal offence only.

With regards to the civil side it has already been determined by the Supreme Court that a parent is not liable.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

That's the essence of what I'm testing.

If I'm not entitled to the contact details of the juvenile or his parents I just want the Youth Diversion Superintendent to confirm that in writing to me so I can try to pursue another avenue to issue the juvenile with a civil writ.

Despite signing for my registered letter requesting this info, with supporting docs etc, in January I still haven't had the courtesy of a response which definitely doesn't square with the commitments made by AGS in the victims charter.

It is not the role of the superintendent to provide you with legal advice though, and the Charter confers no rights either, it is simply a guide.

Also, under Common Law, you can't compel the Gardai in any investigative or administrative functions.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

It is not the role of the superintendent to provide you with legal information though, and the Charter confers no rights either, it is simply a guide.

I'm not looking for legal info, just contact details and the charter is guiding that I can expect AGS to ensure that my "rights to information, advice and
other appropriate assistance are met effectively and efficiently".

3 months and not even an acknowledgement of my request is neither effective or efficient.

GM228 wrote: »

Also, under Common Law, you can't compel the Gardai in any investigative or administrative functions.

Don't need to. The investigating Garda wrote to me offering to be a witness.

blueythebear

54and56 wrote: »

Maybe not but the www.victimscharter.ie states the following which doesn't square with your assertion:-

That does square with my assertion. You have no legal right to the identity of this child.

54and56 wrote: »

Maybe you're right but I'm happy to exhaust the process to a point where the state/justice system officially tells me it cannot hold either the juvenile vandal or his parents liable for the €2,000 in damage he inflicted and that I just have to suck it up. At least at that point I'll have exhausted the state justice process(s) and can then use that inequitable outcome to bang the drum and seek legislative reform.

I am right. And the manner in which you will be officially told will be with your case dismissed and an award of costs against you. You will have to pay money to the parents of the child. Im sure that will not sit well with you.

54and56 wrote: »

I disagree. Holding someone to financial account for their actions doesn't escalate things, it brings closure for all parties.

If you want closure you leave it where it is now. You are prolonging the issue which is the exact opposite of the closure you seek.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

I'm not looking for legal info, just contact details and the charter is guiding that I can expect AGS to ensure that my "rights to information, advice and other appropriate assistance are met effectively and efficiently".

3 months and not even an acknowledgement of my request is neither effective or efficient.

The statement in the charter is qualified, you forgot the important word before rights - "legal rights to information, advice and other appropriate assistance are met effectively and efficiently", there is no legal right for them to reply to you (the same way you have no legal right to the information you seek) or outline the reason for failure to disclose what you seek, a reply is a courtesy, nothing more.

54and56 wrote: »

Don't need to. The investigating Garda wrote to me offering to be a witness.

I was talking in terms of compelling them to go by the charter.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

The statement in the charter is qualified, you forgot the important word before information - "legal rights to information, advice and other appropriate assistance are met effectively and efficiently", there is no legal right for them to reply to you (the same way you have no legal right to the information you seek) or outline the reason for failure to disclose what you seek, a reply is a courtesy, nothing more.

Wow, explains a lot.

GM228 wrote: »

I was talking in terms of compelling them to go by the charter.

No worries, I never mentioned compelling them to be a witness.

Thankfully, despite it not being required under law, that Guard seems to understand what side of the victim / vandal their priority is.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

Wow, explains a lot.

It's a fact though.

54and56 wrote: »

No worries, I never mentioned compelling them to be a witness.

Neither did I, I am not talking about compelling them to be a witness, I'm talking about compelling them to follow anything in the charter.

54and56 wrote: »

Thankfully, despite it not being required under law, that Guard seems to understand what side of the victim / vandal their priority is.

So a failure to reply aligns a person on the side of the vandal?

There could be any number of reasons why you have not had a reply.

54and56

blueythebear wrote: »

That does square with my assertion. You have no legal right to the identity of this child.

Well two things:-

1. I'm not looking for the juveniles identity, I've asked for his parents contact details.

2. If it does prove impossible to get his parents contact details from AGS I have my own very clear HD CCTV of the vandal so I do have the ability to identify him which I haven't overtly tried to do so far but it's a long road.

If I do uncover his identity I'll have what I need to research from public / open sources of info who he is, what his age is, his address etc and if necessary wait until he is past his 18th birthday (which will be well within the statute of limitations for a civil case) to issue my writ. I'm very patient and not in a hurry.

blueythebear wrote: »

I am right. And the manner in which you will be officially told will be with your case dismissed and an award of costs against you. You will have to pay money to the parents of the child. Im sure that will not sit well with you.

Nothing is ever that black and white. Time will tell and if I do end up having to pay c'est la vie. It'll sit better with me than rolling over and not holding this vandal to account.

blueythebear wrote: »

If you want closure you leave it where it is now. You are prolonging the issue which is the exact opposite of the closure you seek.

The problem with that suggestion is I have to pretend to myself that it's ok to let this vandal damage my property and not have to pay for the cost of the repairs.

That might work for some people, not for me.

If some 10 year olds were messing around and accidentally damaged my property I'd expect an apology and for the parents to offer to pay but even if they didn't I'd let it slide as there was no criminal intent.

This guy is 15/16/17, well past the age of criminal responsibility, and what he did (which he admitted to) was nothing other than pure vandalism.

As far as I'm concerned, you deliberately break it, you bought it and until that tab is paid I'll keep chipping away.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

Well two things:-

1. I'm not looking for the juveniles identity, I've asked for his parents contact details.

They can't give you the parents names either, it is an offence for them to do so!

Jim2007

54and56 wrote: »

This guy is 15/16/17, well past the age of criminal responsibility, and what he did (which he admitted to) was nothing other than pure vandalism.

As far as I'm concerned, you deliberately break it, you bought it and until that tab is paid I'll keep chipping away.

You will not get any information about a minor or their family as it would clearly be a disclosure of their identity. The Garda have set exactly why they will not disclose such information to your, so it is false and misleading to state that they have not responded to you. They just did not give you the answer you wanted.


Now clearly you are way out of your depth on this. So it's up to you, consult a solicitor who will explain how to proceed are drop it.

blueythebear

54and56 wrote: »

Well two things:-

1. I'm not looking for the juveniles identity, I've asked for his parents contact details.

2. If it does prove impossible to get his parents contact details from AGS I have my own very clear HD CCTV of the vandal so I do have the ability to identify him which I haven't overtly tried to do so far but it's a long road.

If I do uncover his identity I'll have what I need to research from public / open sources of info who he is, what his age is, his address etc and if necessary wait until he is past his 18th birthday (which will be well within the statute of limitations for a civil case) to issue my writ. I'm very patient and not in a hurry.



Nothing is ever that black and white. Time will tell and if I do end up having to pay c'est la vie. It'll sit better with me than rolling over and not holding this vandal to account.



The problem with that suggestion is I have to pretend to myself that it's ok to let this vandal damage my property and not have to pay for the cost of the repairs.

That might work for some people, not for me.

If some 10 year olds were messing around and accidentally damaged my property I'd expect an apology and for the parents to offer to pay but even if they didn't I'd let it slide as there was no criminal intent.

This guy is 15/16/17, well past the age of criminal responsibility, and what he did (which he admitted to) was nothing other than pure vandalism.

As far as I'm concerned, you deliberately break it, you bought it and until that tab is paid I'll keep chipping away.

Unfortunately, your enthusiasm for retribution/justice does not displace your lack of knowledge here.

Several posters including myself have given you the lie of the land and you still want to proceed in spite of that. Thats your choice but i dont know how eĺse to tell you how ill advised your proposed course of action is.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

They can't give you the parents names either, it is an offence for them to do so!

Then all they need to do so is reply to my request confirming same, I'm not looking for them to do something they are legally prevented from doing.

As the victim in this case I don't think a 2 line reply in a 3 month timeframe from receipt of my registered letter is an unreasonable ask or expectation but then again I'm not used to engaging with AGS so maybe it is??

54and56

Jim2007 wrote: »

You will not get any information about a minor or their family as it would clearly be a disclosure of their identity. The Garda have set exactly why they will not disclose such information to your, so it is false and misleading to state that they have not responded to you. They just did not give you the answer you wanted.

I never said that Jim2007.

The local Super confirmed in writing that he couldn't supply the info but suggested the Super of the Youth Diversion Bureau could help me hence I wrote to that person and have yet to receive either a reply or an acknowledgement of receipt from them.

If the info I'm seeking from the Youth Diversion Super (at the suggestion of the local Super) cannot be divulged I just need that confirmed by them, no problem.

I'll then have to pursue other avenues to be able to issue my civil writ.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

If the info I'm seeking from the Youth Diversion Super (at the suggestion of the local Super) cannot be divulged I just need that confirmed by them, no problem.

I'll then have to pursue other avenues to be able to issue my civil writ.

Why do you need them to confirm it?

It was already confirmed by the local Guard SI, and it's written in statute, what more do you need?

I find it odd that not one, but two members have basically said (correctly) we can't legally give you that information, but also ask another member essentially the same question.

Even waiting until they are 18 does not change the fact they were a minor when the incident happened and the tests of negligence etc are different to that of an adult.

54and56

blueythebear wrote: »

Unfortunately, your lack of knowledge here does not displace your enthusiasm for retribution/justice.

Several posters including myself have given you the lie of the land and you still want to proceed in spite of that. Thats your choice but i dont know how eĺse to tell you how ill advised your proposed course of action is.

That's a bit strong / emotional

I'm looking for the cost of repairing the vandalism to be met, nothing more, nothing less.

Is that not an equitable thing to pursue or are we all supposed to just roll over and let young vandals do whatever they want with financial impunity?

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

Why do you need them to confirm it?

It was already confirmed by the local Guard SI, and it's written in statute, what more do you need?

I find it odd that not one, but two members have basically said (correctly) we can't legally give you that information, but also ask another member essentially the same question.

Apologies, maybe I wasn't clear.

The local SI confirmed he couldn't share the parents contact details with me but specifically suggested in his letter that I contact the the SI of the Youth Diversion Bureau who could help. That's what I did and am waiting a reply.

Why would the local SI he suggest contacting the SI of the Youth Diversion Bureau if he didn't think I'd get some assistance from that person?

GM228 wrote: »

I find it odd that not one, but two members have basically said (correctly) we can't legally give you that information, but also ask another member essentially the same question.

I definitely understand the investigating Guard kicking it up to the local SI, above my pay grade and all that. I don't understand the local SI suggesting the SI of the Youth Diversion Bureau could give me something different to what he'd already given me which was a "No, I can't give you the parents contact details due to the Children Act etc etc".

GM228 wrote: »

Even waiting until they are 18 does not change the fact they were a minor when the incident happened and the tests of negligence etc are different to that of an adult.

Don't think it has anything to do with negligence but I understand the point you're making.

IIRC criminal responsibility starts aged 12 but isn't a binary yes/no and the age etc under 18 will potentially be a mitigating factor.

I hope I get to find out!!

ohnonotgmail

54and56 wrote: »

Apologies, maybe I wasn't clear.

The local SI confirmed he couldn't share the parents contact details with me but specifically suggested in his letter that I contact the the SI of the Youth Diversion Bureau who could help. That's what I did and am waiting a reply.

Why would the local SI he suggest contacting the SI of the Youth Diversion Bureau if he didn't think I'd get some assistance from that person?

to make you leave them alone.

blueythebear

54and56 wrote: »

That's a bit strong / emotional

I'm looking for the cost of repairing the vandalism to be met, nothing more, nothing less.

Is that not an equitable thing to pursue or are we all supposed to just roll over and let young vandals do whatever they want with financial impunity?

The vandal committed a crime and has been dealt with by the criminal justice system. You should leave it there as you are wasting your time, efforts and money on a pointless exercise.

54and56

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to make you leave them alone.

Love it.

54and56

blueythebear wrote: »

The vandal committed a crime and has been dealt with by the criminal justice system. You should leave it there as you are wasting your time, efforts and money on a pointless exercise.

We'll see. There's a reason the civil courts exist and are separate to the criminal courts. Thankfully once I have the vandals contact details I can issue the writ, present the CCTV footage and the vandals letter of admission to the court along with the Guard as a witness (if they follow through on their written offer) and see how the cards fall.

If I end up losing and paying the vandals costs I'll come back and issue beer vouchers all round to those of you who warned me that would happen but if I somehow manage to get a judgement in my favour, even if it takes years to collect, I'll be back here to update and hopefully provide encouragement to others to not roll over and allow yourself, through inertia, to be a helpless victim.

embraer170

This thread has been a real eye opener.

I apparently don't need to worry about any material damage my kids might one day cause, wilful or accidental.

Part of me fully understands the need to hold the person accountable (especially with the evidence you have), but are there better things to do with one's time?

54and56

embraer170 wrote: »

This thread has been a real eye opener.

I apparently don't need to worry about any material damage my kids might one day cause, wilful or accidental.

Part of me fully understands the need to hold the person accountable (especially with the evidence you have), but are there better things to do with one's time?

Lockdown - lot's of time on my hands.

Work from home - too much access to the internet and Boards.ie!!

Netflix - watched it all

DIY list - done.

Sourdough bread - can't be arsed trying to feed some bacteria on a daily basis.

Don't let the vandal who cost you €2,000 not pay for his handiwork - project!!

The above is (slightly) tongue in cheek but I'm old school and can't just turn the cheek when someone takes €2,000 out of my pocket. It's too hard earned.