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

Captain_Crash

54and56 wrote: »

Not sure how anyone can view that as anything other than harming me.

Because the damage has been done, the law as it is has not made that damage any worse, so it’s not punishment! It makes it harder to swallow yeah, but that’s not really relevant!

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

The Youth Diversion Bureau Super hasn't responded to me yet but they will, I'll keep chipping away from all angles until they either reply to the request providing the contact details of the parents or denying my request and stating the basis on which I'm being denied that info.

Yep, that's one of the options I'll pursue if I don't get a response form the Youth Diversion Bureau Super by the end of this month.

If GSOC confirm my expectations of being treated respectfully in an effective and efficient manner are OTT and the Youth Diversion Bureau Super is behaving to the expected standard by just blanking my request for 3 months I'll fold my tent in terms of pursuing co-operation from AGS but there will still be a number of avenues and potential outcomes open to me which I've outlined previously.

Instead of insisting the Gardai explain why they can't give you the details, why don't you look it up and do some proper research, or just ask your "guy" and save the 151 posts in this thread thus far. The Gardai are not a citizens information service, they are not responsible for advising you on the legalities or the law, they owe you no duty of care and are not required to reply to every inquiry they receive.

What would you expect GSOC to do exactly, perhaps they will kindly ask the Guard to send you a reply, because otherwise GSOC have no power to compel the Guard to give you any sort of acknowledgement.

The thread has reached the stage now where it is just constantly going around in circles like a merry go round.

54and56

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Because the damage has been done, the law as it is has not made that damage any worse, so it’s not punishment! It makes it harder to swallow yeah, but that’s not really relevant!

It's systematically preventing me from even trying to seek compensation.

That's harming me.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

Instead of insisting the Gardai explain why they can't give you the details, why don't you look it up and do some proper research, or just ask your "guy" and save the 151 posts in this thread thus far.

I'm asking for info they and they alone have which I need to seek compensation.

GM228 wrote: »

The Gardai are not a citizens information service, they are not responsible for advising you on the legalities or the law, they owe you no duty of care and are not required to reply to every inquiry they receive.

I'm not asking the Gardai for advice, how can you not see that?

They do however owe a duty of care to victims of crime or perhaps you think they don't?

If they don't have a duty of care to victims of crime, who do they have a duty of care to? From my viewpoint it seems their primary duty of care is to the vandal. Perhaps that's how it is but it sure seems odd to me.

I agree that they don't have to reply to every enquiry but as a victim of crime I believe I qualify for a timely and effective response. Perhaps you disagree?

GM228 wrote: »

What would you expect GSOC to do exactly, perhaps they will kindly ask the Guard to send you a reply, because otherwise GSOC have no power to compel the Guard to give you any sort of acknowledgement.

That would suffice nicely.

GM228 wrote: »

The thread has reached the stage now where it is just constantly going around in circles like a merry go round.

You're not compelled to participate, thank you for your contribution.

Please feel free to step off the merry go round any time you want to.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

They do however owe a duty of care to victims of crime or perhaps you think they don't?

They don't, I know they don't, the courts have held they don't!

They can only ever hold a duty of care under the ordinary principles of the law of negligence, in other words they owe no duty of care towards a victim of crime.

It is known under common law as the "Hill Principle".

Captain_Crash

54and56 wrote: »

It's systematically preventing me from even trying to seek compensation.

That's harming me.

Not being able to seek compensation isn’t harming you, it not inflicted any more damage to you and it hasn’t removed any rights! You don’t agree with that so there is no point in discussing any further. The law as it is neither favours or punishes you!

You've backed the wrong horse here... it’s best to get off it before it costs you more money than the 2 grands worth of damage already done.

54and56

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Not being able to seek compensation isn’t harming you,

Wrong.

Try walking in my shoes and concluding it isn't harming me.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

They can only ever hold a duty of care under the ordinary principles of the law of negligence, in other words they owe no duty of care towards a victim of crime.

It is known under common law as the "Hill Principle".

So who do they owe a duty of care to if anybody?

Have you read the 96 page https://www.victimscharter.ie which AGS signed up to? I know it's not legally binding but unless you think its no more than a cynical PR exercise then AGS does aspire to assist victims of crime (like me) in an efficient and effective manner.

It's interesting that the "Hill Principle" you reference is a UK precedent which is irrelevant to my situation as I have no intention of ever suing the Gardai.

The "Hill Principle" summary is "The police will no longer enjoy blanket immunity from being sued for negligent acts committed in the course of operational duties." Why did you incorrectly reference that?

Are you pretending to be more authoritative about Irish legal matters than you really are? When you say you are involved in the legal service what is it you do? I assumed you were legally expert but then someone working as a kitchen porter in the courts could legitimately claim to be working "in a legal environment" :-)

You wanted to get off the Merry Go Round earlier but chose not to which is fine but now you are referencing completely irrelevant UK case law.

Why is that?

Are you mistaken (it's ok to admit you are mistaken) or are you trying and failing to be someone with more knowledge and experience than you actually have?

OP, you have recieved the correct information. You are choosing to ignore it now because it doesnt fit your desires and instead insist on arguing and telling everyone they are wrong. One wonders why you posted to begin with.

Looking through this thread, you have recieved good solid information from at least 3 people that know what they are talking about. Ignore it if you want

Infernal Racket

54and56 wrote: »

So who do they owe a duty of care to if anybody?

Have you read the 96 page https://www.victimscharter.ie which AGS signed up to? I know it's not legally binding but unless you think its no more than a cynical PR exercise then AGS does aspire to assist victims of crime (like me) in an efficient and effective manner.

It's interesting that the "Hill Principle" you reference is a UK precedent which is irrelevant to my situation as I have no intention of ever suing the Gardai.

The "Hill Principle" summary is "The police will no longer enjoy blanket immunity from being sued for negligent acts committed in the course of operational duties." Why did you incorrectly reference that?

Are you pretending to be more authoritative about Irish legal matters than you really are? When you say you are involved in the legal service what is it you do? I assumed you were legally expert but then someone working as a kitchen porter in the courts could legitimately claim to be working "in a legal environment" :-)

You wanted to get off the Merry Go Round earlier but chose not to which is fine but now you are referencing completely irrelevant UK case law.

Why is that?

Are you mistaken (it's ok to admit you are mistaken) or are you trying and failing to be someone with more knowledge and experience than you actually have?

The Guards did assist you. They identified the offender, they dealt with him by using the only avenue available to them. What more do you want them to do?

54and56

Infernal Racket wrote: »

The Guards did assist you. They identified the offender, they dealt with him by using the only avenue available to them. What more do you want them to do?

Not much.

Provide me with the contact details of the vandals parents so I can (if I choose) issue a civil writ for compensation and if they are restricted by law from doing so to confirm same.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

So who do they owe a duty of care to if anybody?

Have you read the 96 page https://www.victimscharter.ie which AGS signed up to?  I know it's not legally binding but unless you think its no more than a cynical PR exercise then AGS does aspire to assist victims of crime (like me) in an efficient and effective manner.

Yes I have, but, as you correctly note it is not law.

They owe a duty of care only to someone with which they directly create a harm.

54and56 wrote: »

It's interesting that the "Hill Principle" you reference is a UK precedent which is irrelevant to my situation as I have no intention of ever suing the Gardai.

The so called "Hill Principle" is applicable in nearly every common law jurisdiction in the world including here where the principles of such have specifically been adopted by the Irish courts.

54and56 wrote: »

The "Hill Principle" summary is "The police will no longer enjoy blanket immunity from being sued for negligent acts committed in the course of operational duties."  Why did you incorrectly reference that?

Why did I incorrectly reference it? I didn't, you said the Gardai owe victims of crime a duty of care, they don't, that is a fact, something which is absolute under the principle. The UK Supreme Court by the way reaffirmed the Hill principles, it didn't limit them.

54and56 wrote: »

Are you pretending to be more authoritative about Irish legal matters than you really are?  When you say you are involved in the legal service what is it you do?  I assumed you were legally expert but then someone working as a kitchen porter in the courts could legitimately claim to be working "in a legal environment" :-)

Where did I say I was "involved" in the legal service? I didn't mention my profession and it is none of your concern, but, if you must know the law relating to the Gardai, their duties and immunities is my specialty when it comes to the law. That aside, can I take your order and I'll pass it onto the senior kitchen porter?

54and56 wrote: »

You wanted to get off the Merry Go Round earlier but chose not to which is fine but now you are referencing completely irrelevant UK case law.

Why is that?

Merry go rounds can be fun - up until a certain point, I'll jump off when the time is right.

54and56 wrote: »

Are you mistaken (it's ok to admit you are mistaken) or are you trying and failing to be someone with more knowledge and experience than you actually have?

Nope, I'm 100% correct. You need to equip yourself with better Google skills when you search the so called Hill Principle and it's application in this state, but if you want to be spoon fed some case law, here you go:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=109610600

You see I do know what I am talking about, it's my area of expertise. Your "guy" should you choose to contact him would save you so many strokes of the keyboard and confirm everything you've been told previously in this thread.

54and56

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

OP, you have recieved the correct information. You are choosing to ignore it now because it doesnt fit your desires and instead insist on arguing and telling everyone they are wrong. One wonders why you posted to begin with.

Looking through this thread, you have received good solid information from at least 3 people that know what they are talking about. Ignore it if you want

I'm absolutely not.

I accept that the law may prevent AGS from sharing the vandals parents contact details. If, assuming the Youth Diversion Programme Super ever replies to my request, they confirm that I'll accept it and move on to identifying their contact details via other legal means.

Separately, it's my view that a law which systematically prevents me from having the opportunity to seek recompense in the civil courts is discriminating and unjust.

Maybe others disagree that's fine, we can agree to disagree on that point.

SetOverSet

54and56 wrote: »

So who do they owe a duty of care to if anybody?

...

It's interesting that the "Hill Principle" you reference is a UK precedent which is irrelevant to my situation as I have no intention of ever suing the Gardai.

The Hill Principle summary is "The police will no longer enjoy blanket immunity from being sued for negligent acts committed in the course of operational duties." Why did you incorrectly reference that?

...

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire is a UK case, but there are plenty of reported High Court decisions in this jurisdictions applying that principle, and I think a more proper summary would be that no duty of care arises in respect of bona fide decisions carried out by the Guards in the course of their duty.

54and56

54and56 wrote: »

Not much.

Provide me with the contact details of the vandals parents so I can (if I choose) issue a civil writ for compensation and if they are restricted by law from doing so to confirm same.

You have been told by the gardai that they cannot give you that information and have been told the legislation that covers the reason why.
I don't know why the superintendent told you to contact the superintendent in JLO, maybe he thought he was being helpful. But the law is the law, no matter who tells you about it.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

You need to equip yourself with better Google skills when you search the so called Hill Principle and it's application in this state

The Hill Principle is a red herring ref my situation.

My issue relates to not getting a timely response from the Youth Diversion Programme Super.

The 108 page Victims Charter is full of language about how important it is to support victims etc and how AGS will endeavour to do so blah blah blah but as you say it's not legally binding.

What is your opinion on the Garda Charter? Does AGS have to live up to any of the commitments it made in that document or is that also just a cynical PR exercise?

In particular I'd like to get your thoughts on how well, three months after I contacted them and have yet to have a reply or acknowledgement of receipt, they are adhering to the following commitment made in their charter?

GM228

SetOverSet wrote: »

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire is a UK case, but there are plenty of reported High Court decisions in this jurisdictions applying that principle, and I think a more proper summary would be that no duty of care arises in respect of bona fide decisions carried out by the Guards in the course of their duty.

You could even take the bona fide (there's only one case which specifically stated it and it is not stated in later case law) qualification out of the equation.

A guard investigating a crime who fails to follow up an obvious lead may be guilty of negligence in the ordinary sense of the word, but, this does not give rise to any actionable liability on the part of a member of the public.

54and56

bubblypop wrote: »

You have been told by the gardai that they cannot give you that information and have been told the legislation that covers the reason why.
I don't know why the superintendent told you to contact the superintendent in JLO, maybe he thought he was being helpful. But the law is the law, no matter who tells you about it.

If the local Super had been that definitive I would have had not choice but to accept what he stated but he wasn't, he referred me to the JLO Super hence I am where I am.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

The Hill Principle is a red herring ref my situation.

It was brought up due to your claim they owed a victim of crime a duty of care.

54and56 wrote: »

My issue relates to not getting a timely response from the Youth Diversion Programme Super.

The 108 page Victims Charter is full of language about how important it is to support victims etc and how AGS will endeavour to do so blah blah blah but as you say it's not legally binding.

What is your opinion on the Garda Charter? Does AGS have to live up to any of the commitments it made in that document or is that also just a cynical PR exercise?

In particular I'd like to get your thoughts on how well, three months after I contacted them and have yet to have a reply or acknowledgement of receipt, they are adhering to the following commitment made in their charter?

It's not law, it's a guide, they don't have to reply, simples. Forget the so called Hill Principle, the common law power of discretion applies, the charter can't compel them to act in any particular way even if it was law.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

If the local Super had been that definitive I would have had not choice but to accept what he stated but he wasn't, he referred me to the JLO Super hence I am where I am.

Why don't you just read the actual law instead of relying on a Guard to tell you what we have all been telling you

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

Separately, it's my view that a law which systematically prevents me from having the opportunity to seek recompense in the civil courts is discriminating and unjust.

Maybe others disagree that's fine, we can agree to disagree on that point.

There are often compelling considerations rooted in the welfare of the whole community, which outweigh the dictates of individualized justice, this is one of those situations.

It creates what the individual perceives as an unjust situation, but the courts disagree and base such decisions on the greater good of society as a whole.

If I were in your situation I would feel the same no doubt, but, I would also understand why it is the way it is (yes I have the advantage of knowing the law) and would in fact actually agree with it.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

It's not law, it's a guide, they don't have to reply, simples. Forget the so called Hill Principle, the common law power of discretion applies, the charter can't compel them to act in any particular way even if it was law.

I guess the word "always" must mean something else to you than it does to me.

"We will always treat you with dignity and respect when you contact us regardless of how, where or for what reason that contact takes place."

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

Why don't you just read the actual law instead of relying on a Guard to tell you what we have all been telling you

Because I don't want to misinterpret the law and AGS hold the info I want so I'd rather get it from the horses mouth so to speak and whilst I genuinely appreciate the contributions here which have been very informative thus far (and I accept you are a subject matter expert on the law relating to the Gardai) I'm not going to take the (possibly correct) input of strangers on the interweb as a substitute for a definitive official response from AGS which I will eventually get one way or another.

54and56

54and56 wrote: »

Because I don't want to misinterpret the law and AGS hold the info I want so I'd rather get it from the horses mouth so to speak and whilst I genuinely appreciate the contributions here which have been very informative thus far (and I accept you are a subject matter expert on the law relating to the Gardai) I'm not going to take the (possibly correct) input of strangers on the interweb as a substitute for a definitive official response from AGS which I will eventually get one way or another.

Gardaí don't hold the information you want, just look up the legislation on irishstatutebook.ie

As for the victims charter, you were a visit of a crime, gardai found the person responsible and brought them to justice, surely they have fulfilled their duty to you, the victim

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

I guess the word "always" must mean something else to you than it does to me.

"We will always treat you with dignity and respect when you contact us regardless of how, where or for what reason that contact takes place."

The wording is irrelevant.

It's not law.
It's a guide.
The charter can't compel them to act in any particular way.

As such the use of "always" or any other terminology means jack diddly squat in the legal sense.

It may be viewed as best practice and curtesy which is fair enough, but, it confers no responsibility on them to reply to you and confers no right for you to receive a reply.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

The wording is irrelevant.

It's not law.
It's a guide.
The charter can't compel them to act in any particular way.

As such the use of "always" or any other terminology means jack diddly squat in the legal sense.

It may be viewed as best practice and curtesy which is fair enough, but, it confers no responsibility on them to reply to you and confers no right for you to receive a reply.

Class, nice to know AGS's own charter means the square root of FA to them. Excellent example to set to others.

I wonder why they bothered going to the trouble of creating and publishing a charter so? Just to burn a bit more taxpayer money? Like the Victims Charter?

Great little country.

54and56

bubblypop wrote: »

Gardaí don't hold the information you want

If the Gardai don't have the vandals home address how did they go to his house and bring him in for questioning etc?

54and56

54and56 wrote: »

If the Gardai don't have the vandals home address how did they go to his house and bring him in for questioning etc?

Ah, I misunderstood, sorry. They have told you that they cannot give that information to you. It would be illegal for them to do so. You can look the legislation up yourself.

Claw Hammer

A similar situation arose in Riga leading to a referral to the ECJ
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=187183&doclang=en

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A similar situation arose in Riga leading to a referral to the ECJ
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=187183&doclang=en

And to summarise, both the Advocate Generals opinion and subsequent judgement of the ECJ found there was no right to the information identifying those involved from the Police in order to initiate civil proceedings.

54and56 will be disappointed, essentially the highest court in Europe has held that under data protection laws you are not entitled to the information that will identify someone involved in order to initiate a civil case against them, but, that does not however prevent for such where provision is made under national laws in certain circumstances such as has been done here since 1933 as already outlined under the The Road Traffic Act 1961.