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

ohnonotgmail

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.

they told them to contact the other superintendent to get them to go away. I can understand why.

HC Baker

Should never have been dealt with under the youth diversion programme given the magnitude of the monetary loss. It should have went to court and the judge would have ordered payment. GSOC only course of action. You eed them to investigate the handling of the case and to make directions in order for you to obtain the details for a civil case and if they ruled in your favour you could take an action against an garda siochana.

Witcher

HC Baker wrote: »

Should never have been dealt with under the youth diversion programme given the magnitude of the monetary loss. It should have went to court and the judge would have ordered payment. GSOC only course of action. You eed them to investigate the handling of the case and to make directions in order for you to obtain the details for a civil case and if they ruled in your favour you could take an action against an garda siochana.

None of that is correct.

HC Baker

Witcher wrote: »

None of that is correct.

If a balanced approach is not taken for the youth diversion programme, youths can just run wild with no consequenced. In this case the needs of the victim were not properly taken into account, given the 2k financial loss. If it went to court and the youth was found guilty, the judge would have ordered payment and upon payment being made, the matter would most likely have been struck out.

GM228

HC Baker wrote: »

Should never have been dealt with under the youth diversion programme given the magnitude of the monetary loss. It should have went to court and the judge would have ordered payment. GSOC only course of action. You eed them to investigate the handling of the case and to make directions in order for you to obtain the details for a civil case and if they ruled in your favour you could take an action against an garda siochana.

HC Baker wrote: »

If a balanced approach is not taken for the youth diversion programme, youths can just run wild with no consequenced. In this case the needs of the victim were not properly taken into account, given the 2k financial loss. If it went to court and the youth was found guilty, the judge would have ordered payment and upon payment being made, the matter would most likely have been struck out.

You have absolutely nidea of what you are speaking about.

Witcher

HC Baker wrote: »

If a balanced approach is not taken for the youth diversion programme, youths can just run wild with no consequenced. In this case the needs of the victim were not properly taken into account, given the 2k financial loss. If it went to court and the youth was found guilty, the judge would have ordered payment and upon payment being made, the matter would most likely have been struck out.

Just stop lol

HC Baker

Witcher wrote: »

Just stop lol

So what's your advice? And I'm interested to hear your take on the parameters for using the youth diversion programme?

GM228

HC Baker wrote: »

So what's your advice?

Start with speaking in facts, most of what you said (in particular the parts I had highlighted in bold) can't happen.

P.S there's 180+ posts of reading here for you first.

HC Baker wrote: »

It should have went to court

It is preferable that a minor be considered for inclusion in the diversion programme as a priority over prosecution when they accept guilt (if they are not accepted to the programme they are entitled to be given a reason for such).

HC Baker wrote: »

the judge would have ordered payment.

Against a minor, not going to happen.

Against their parents – extremely unlikely given that there are qualifications on the ability to do so as previously discussed in the thread (there would also have to be a finding of guilt before a compensation order can be issued).

HC Baker wrote: »

GSOC only course of action. You need them to investigate the handling of the case and to make directions in order for you to obtain the details for a civil case and if they ruled in your favour you could take an action against an garda siochana.

GSOC have no say in the matter, they can’t make any “directions” to obtain the details, it is against the law, they can’t take action against the Gardai and neither can the public, the Gardai don't owe the public any duty of care.

HC Baker wrote: »

If it went to court and the youth was found guilty, the judge would have ordered payment and upon payment being made, the matter would most likely have been struck out.

If someone is found guilty the matter can’t then be struck out, likewise if struck out there can’t be any finding of guilt, without a finding of guilt there can be no compensation order.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

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.

Taken from the beginning of the ruling

"The police gave Rīgas satiksme only the passenger’s name. They refused to provide the ID number and address.".

So the police can provide the name.

If I got the vandals name (or his parents name(s)) I'd be confident of finding the address myself via open source info.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

Taken from the beginning of the ruling

"The police gave Rīgas satiksme only the passenger’s name. They refused to provide the ID number and address.".

So the police can provide the name.

If I got the vandals name (or his parents name(s)) I'd be confident of finding the address myself via open source info.

I think your missing the point, the fact the name only was given means nothing here, the law in Latvia allowed for such on a discretional basis, the law in Ireland strictly forbids such and makes it a criminal offence to do so.

This case ended up in the Latvian Supreme Court where it was held there was no entitlement to the details, it was purely discretionary, the Police had the option to give certain details as provided for under Latvian law, but, the person making the request had no right to the information, following referral to the ECJ they too held that there was no obligation to give the details, but that does not preclude such disclosure on the basis of national law. In other words you are not entitled to the information you seek unless national law makes provision for such.

The difference here is that Irish law specifically makes it a criminal offence to give the information, there is no disclosure provisions in Irish law (other than in the Road Traffic Act 1961 as already discussed).

Infernal Racket

Genuinely, I'd over to know what your hopes are for this case OP. Your biggest gripe appears to be that you are out 2 grand which is a lot of money but of you try to pursue this it is going to cost you multiples more than that and for what? Your second biggest gripe is that one Supt told you to contact another Supt just to get rid of you as they probably had a 100 other more important things to do that day and your case was essentially closed to them. I just don't get how you seem to be so obstinate in accepting all the good advice. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue this whatsoever and yet, you're hanging on to receiving a reply from the JLO Supt which you may eventually get and it will tell you everything that you've already been told. Dont hold your breath on receiving that reply though because again, this case is closed to them and they have thousands of other active cases with which to be dealing.

54and56

Infernal Racket wrote: »

Genuinely, I'd over to know what your hopes are for this case OP. Your biggest gripe appears to be that you are out 2 grand which is a lot of money but of you try to pursue this it is going to cost you multiples more than that and for what?

Couple of things on that:-

1. My hopes are to either recover the €2,000 the vandal cost me or to gather enough info to spark a judicial review into why the greater good of protecting the vandal and paying for resources to "support" him during his 12 month JLO supervision etc should be at my personal cost via a law which systematically prevents me from having any recourse to the civil courts to seek recompense. If the state thinks it's so important to protect the vandal from being financially accountable for his actions and want to spend money on JLO supervision etc then they should also pay for the damage caused to the victim via some form of fund preferably financed from proceeds of crime recovered by CAB or similar, just as happens when an uninsured driver causes damage they aren't financially liable for.

2. I'm doing this myself and have the time so there is no cost and it's much better than watching Eastenders or whatever. If I do end up requiring a solicitor because I can't work the District Court process myself I'll make a judgment call then but I've a good bit of credit with one solicitor in particular who I've referred a lot of client work to over the years so I'm sure he'll keep his costs down or, spending on the time involved and outcome etc may not charge me at all as I've done professional favours for his clients a few times FOC.

Infernal Racket wrote: »

Your second biggest gripe is that one Supt told you to contact another Supt just to get rid of you as they probably had a 100 other more important things to do that day and your case was essentially closed to them.

I don't disagree. It would have been far easier, quicker and more definitive for the Super to just write the first two sentences and not decide to add in the third.

Infernal Racket wrote: »

Dont hold your breath on receiving that reply though because again, this case is closed to them and they have thousands of other active cases with which to be dealing.

Apparently I can hold my breath waiting for a reply as they are committed to "always" treating members of the public with respect and personal accountability in an efficient and effective manner.

Unless of course the Garda Charter is a load of old nonsense and just some sort of organisational joke they are playing on the country.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

1. My hopes are to either recover the €2,000 the vandal cost me or to gather enough info to spark a judicial review into why the greater good of protecting the vandal and paying for resources to "support" him during his 12 month JLO supervision etc should be at my personal cost via a law which systematically prevents me from having any recourse to the civil courts to seek recompense. If the state thinks it's so important to protect the vandal from being financially accountable for his actions and want to spend money on JLO supervision etc then they should also pay for the damage caused to the victim via some form of fund preferably financed from proceeds of crime recovered by CAB or similar, just as happens when an uninsured driver causes damage they aren't financially liable for.

You have ZERO chance of any successful JR, you would struggle even to successfully have a locus standi in the first place. If you some how struggle past that first hurdle you will need essentially a blank cheque (and we could be talking 6 figures +) to even take on such.

The protection of a minors identity is rooted in 1000s of years of case law from both national law and more importantly international law backed by 100s of nations and organisations, to successfully challenge that would be contrary to public policy, the greater good of the state, Irish case law, European Court of Human Rights case law, international law and treaty obligations. Simply put, your not going to change the system and no amount of political will will exist to do so either.

54and56 wrote: »

2. I'm doing this myself and have the time so there is no cost and it's much better than watching Eastenders or whatever. If I do end up requiring a solicitor because I can't work the District Court process myself I'll make a judgment call then but I've a good bit of credit with one solicitor in particular who I've referred a lot of client work to over the years so I'm sure he'll keep his costs down or, spending on the time involved and outcome etc may not charge me at all as I've done professional favours for his clients a few times FOC.

Forget his costs, what about all the other costs involved if?

54and56 wrote: »

I don't disagree. It would have been far easier, quicker and more definitive for the Super to just write the first two sentences and not decide to add in the third.

Having viewed your reply from the local SI, I’m curious as to what exactly you asked from them because the reference to “details” and a suggestion to make inquiries elsewhere as well as the odd mention of S48 makes me wonder if you asked for more than just a name and address? Perhaps you asked for some other evidential information?

Infernal Racket

54and56 wrote: »

Couple of things on that:-

1. My hopes are to either recover the €2,000 the vandal cost me or to gather enough info to spark a judicial review into why the greater good of protecting the vandal and paying for resources to "support" him during his 12 month JLO supervision etc should be at my personal cost via a law which systematically prevents me from having any recourse to the civil courts to seek recompense. If the state thinks it's so important to protect the vandal from being financially accountable for his actions and want to spend money on JLO supervision etc then they should also pay for the damage caused to the victim via some form of fund preferably financed from proceeds of crime recovered by CAB or similar, just as happens when an uninsured driver causes damage they aren't financially liable for.

2. I'm doing this myself and have the time so there is no cost and it's much better than watching Eastenders or whatever. If I do end up requiring a solicitor because I can't work the District Court process myself I'll make a judgment call then but I've a good bit of credit with one solicitor in particular who I've referred a lot of client work to over the years so I'm sure he'll keep his costs down or, spending on the time involved and outcome etc may not charge me at all as I've done professional favours for his clients a few times FOC.



I don't disagree. It would have been far easier, quicker and more definitive for the Super to just write the first two sentences and not decide to add in the third.





Apparently I can hold my breath waiting for a reply as they are committed to "always" treating members of the public with respect and personal accountability in an efficient and effective manner.

Unless of course the Garda Charter is a load of old nonsense and just some sort of organisational joke they are playing on the country.

You hit the nail on the head. The Garda Charter is in great part a nonsense document which they had to release as part of the whole modernisation process. It has no basis in law whatsoever so don't be pinning your hopes to it. Its akin to a mission statement hung on the wall of a Jack's door when it comes to real life policing. You may not like to hear that but that's just how it is.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

You have ZERO chance of any successful JR, you would struggle even to successfully have a locus standi in the first place. If you some how struggle past that first hurdle you will need essentially a blank cheque (and we could be talking 6 figures +) to even take on such.

I accept you may be right but if (as pretty much everyone here is asserting) the law will prevent me from having recourse to the Civil Courts and I have to suck up the €2,000 as it's in the greater good then I'm going to see how far I can challenge that. What if the bill was €20,000 or €200,000? Does the law still maintain I'd have to suck it up? Is there no limit to the financial loss a law abiding victim has to bear in order to protect the identity of a vandal? If there is a limit what is it?

GM228 wrote: »

The protection of a minors identity is rooted in 1000s of years of case law from both national law and more importantly international law backed by 100s of nations and organisations, to successfully challenge that would be contrary to public policy, the greater good of the state, Irish case law, European Court of Human Rights case law, international law and treaty obligations. Simply put, your not going to change the system and no amount of political will will exist to do so either.

I accept there are valid reasons for minors protections etc but I don't accept it should be at the financial cost to an individual law abiding citizen. If the state legislates to protect minors it should pick up all the tab, not just some of it and the very last person who should be picking up the tab is the actual victim.

GM228 wrote: »

Having viewed your reply from the local SI, I’m curious as to what exactly you asked from them because the reference to “details” and a suggestion to make inquiries elsewhere as well as the odd mention of S48 makes me wonder if you asked for more than just a name and address? Perhaps you asked for some other evidential information?

This is verbatim from my letter to the super:

"I am writing to you to request the contact details of the parents and/or legal guardians of the youth who committed criminal damage to my property on XX/XX/XXX.

I am determined to hold the youth to financial account for the damage he caused and wish to initiate a civil case against his parents/guardians via the District Court."

Not necessarily my finest prose but that's what the Super was responding to. I had also attached a copy of the letter of apology the JLO got from the youth and quoted the Pulse reference number etc.

54and56

Infernal Racket wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head. The Garda Charter is in great part a nonsense document which they had to release as part of the whole modernisation process. It has no basis in law whatsoever so don't be pinning your hopes to it. Its akin to a mission statement hung on the wall of a Jack's door when it comes to real life policing. You may not like to hear that but that's just how it is.

You might be right and AGS may in fact be just cynically pulling the wool over the public's eye's by saying and committing to the Charter whilst having no intention of adhering to it.

I'll keep following up and if after a few more months I still haven't had a reply I'll commence a GSOC complaint and see if that gets any traction.

I expect that may also be a White Elephant which may produce nothing but I might as well exhaust that avenue if I have to.

TheBoyConor

54and56 wrote: »

I totally get that and am not commercially naive but I want some accountability.

Difficulty getting paid (post judgement) is part of the reason I don't want to engage a solicitor and want to do this myself. No point throwing good money after bad if in the end I don't get paid as I'd have to my solicitor one way or the other.

Judges don't take kindly to people representing themselves. That would go against you in itself not to mind you not knowing the legal intricacies, customary practices and having the benefit of years of experience.

The established protocol is that your get a solicitor to represent you and manage your case because they have the knowledge and experience to do so.

Going at it in DIY fashion pisses off judges no end because you are coming in with half a case wasting the courts time on something that can't be progressed because of someone wanting to do it DIY.

Judges are also reluctant to hear self representation because if you don't succeed then he could face you coming back to court arguing that how could you have a fair hearing when you weren't adequately represented.

You're on a hiding to nothing at this lark. Get a solicitor it suck it up.

There's hardly any point anyway since you haven't a hope in hell of collecting any judgement.
If you are out to prove a point, well the other family aren't going to give 2 fúcks about your point.
The only point you'll prove is your staggering naivety.

RobbieMD

54and56 wrote: »

You might be right and AGS may in fact be just cynically pulling the wool over the public's eye's by saying and committing to the Charter whilst having no intention of adhering to it.

I'll keep following up and if after a few more months I still haven't had a reply I'll commence a GSOC complaint and see if that gets any traction.

I expect that may also be a White Elephant which may produce nothing but I might as well exhaust that avenue if I have to.

What would your complaint to GSOC be? Is it not just a waste of their limited time, time that they could spend investigating actual Garda misconduct?

54and56

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Judges don't take kindly to people representing themselves. That would go against you in itself not to mind you not knowing the legal intricacies, customary practices and having the benefit of years of experience.

The established protocol is that your get a solicitor to represent you and manage your case because they have the knowledge and experience to do so.

Going at it in DIY fashion pisses off judges no end because you are coming in with half a case wasting the courts time on something that can't be progressed because of someone wanting to do it DIY.

Judges are also reluctant to hear self representation because if you don't succeed then he could face you coming back to court arguing that how could you have a fair hearing when you weren't adequately represented.

You're on a hiding to nothing at this lark. Get a solicitor it suck it up.

There's hardly any point anyway since you haven't a hope in hell of collecting any judgement.
If you are out to prove a point, well the other family aren't going to give 2 fúcks about your point.
The only point you'll prove is your staggering naivety.

Access to civil courts is not reserved for those who can afford or choose to incur the cost of a solicitor.

This is an interesting read - http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Review_of_the_Administration_of_Civil_Justice_-_Review_Group_Report

If I somehow get an opportunity to take a case and of I decide to do so I may or may not decide to engage a solicitor but if I don't whether judges like or dislike the fact I'm representing myself isn't going to be high on my decision criteria.

54and56

RobbieMD wrote: »

What would your complaint to GSOC be?

Two possibilities:-

1. If the Youth Diversion Super doesn't reply to the registered letter and copy by email I sent in January I will complain that they are not upholding the standards they set out in the Garda Charter and committed to in the Victims Charter etc. It might be immediately dismissed if it doesn't meet GSOCs investigation criteria and if it does confirmation of that by GSOC will close off that avenue.

2. If the Youth Diversion Super confirms (as the local Super did) that the Children's Act prevents me from revceiving the info I need to seek recompense from the civil court I may complain that applying the Youth Diversion programme in my case was the incorrect decision to make and as the victim my circumstances and the effect of applying the Youth Diversion programme on my ability to seek recourse to the civil courts were not taken into account.

RobbieMD wrote: »

Is it not just a waste of their limited time, time that they could spend investigating actual Garda misconduct?

I don't know. I'm sure if my complaint(s) don't meet their assessment / investigation criteria they won't waste any time on it.

ohnonotgmail

54and56 wrote: »

Two possibilities:-

1. If the Youth Diversion Super doesn't reply to the registered letter and copy by email I sent in January I will complain that they are not upholding the standards they set out in the Garda Charter and committed to in the Victims Charter etc. It might be immediately dismissed if it doesn't meet GSOCs investigation criteria and if it does confirmation of that by GSOC will close off that avenue.

2. If the Youth Diversion Super confirms (as the local Super did) that the Children's Act prevents me from revceiving the info I need to seek recompense from the civil court I may complain that applying the Youth Diversion programme in my case was the incorrect decision to make and as the victim my circumstances and the effect of applying the Youth Diversion programme on my ability to seek recourse to the civil courts were not taken into account.

Complain to who, how and on what basis?

JohnMcm1

Hope you get sorted OP sick of silly little ***** like him hassling decent people and the degenerate scumbag parents being protected from paying compensation. Should be withdrawn directly from their dole (which I'd bet my hat they are on).

Infernal Racket

JohnMcm1 wrote: »

Hope you get sorted OP sick of silly little ***** like him hassling decent people and the degenerate scumbag parents being protected from paying compensation. Should be withdrawn directly from their dole (which I'd bet my hat they are on).

The very reason these little ****s get away with all this is because the bleeding hearts of Ireland decided over the course of a number of years that the Garda giving a boot in the hole to little Johnny and dragging him back kicking and screaming to his parents was Garda brutality and their practices must stop. As a result, the Gardai are now absolutely toothless when it comes to young people and the young people know it. Unfortunately things will only get worse and no amount of complaints to GSOC or complaints to the courts or anyone else is going to change this.

RobbieMD

54and56 wrote: »

Two possibilities:-

1. If the Youth Diversion Super doesn't reply to the registered letter and copy by email I sent in January I will complain that they are not upholding the standards they set out in the Garda Charter and committed to in the Victims Charter etc. It might be immediately dismissed if it doesn't meet GSOCs investigation criteria and if it does confirmation of that by GSOC will close off that avenue.

2. If the Youth Diversion Super confirms (as the local Super did) that the Children's Act prevents me from revceiving the info I need to seek recompense from the civil court I may complain that applying the Youth Diversion programme in my case was the incorrect decision to make and as the victim my circumstances and the effect of applying the Youth Diversion programme on my ability to seek recourse to the civil courts were not taken into account.



I don't know. I'm sure if my complaint(s) don't meet their assessment / investigation criteria they won't waste any time on it.

The Superintendent over the Garda that investigated your crime has already stated that the information you want cannot, by law, be provided. I see no merit in having another Superintendent confirm such.

The victim charter is not exhaustive. You’ve already stated that the investigating Garda has updated you on what happened in your case and the Superintendent has written to you. I’m sure that covers them sufficiently from any GSOC enquiry.

You can complain that the youth diversion programme was the incorrect decision however you are basing that on your subjective uninformed opinion. You have no idea of the youth involved, whether there was any previous cautions or it’s their first time coming to the attention of the authorities, their family background etc.

I genuinely believe you’re wasting your time and the time of others, and it’ll all come to nothing in the end.

TheBoyConor

I never said it was reserved for that or that you were not allowed. you have every right, legal and moral, to represent yourself in court. However, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it is a good idea or strategy. A person has every right to live on McDonalds and drink 6 cans a day every day. Right, but an awful and inadvisable idea. You have right to walk down a busy windy regional mountain road at night wearing camoflage head to toe. Right, but downright terrible and suicidal idea. You get the idea.

You can of course go an represent yourself. But when you do, you could be seen as showing a subtle degree of contempt for the usual customs and practices of the courts. It may be the civil courts, but that doesn't diminish the seriousness of it - it isn't Judge Judy, or the small claims court.

When you rock up in court with no representation it could be seen in several ways, none of them good....
- You aren't taking the court proceedings seriously, if you were you would get proper advice and representation
- You are showing disregard for the usual customs and practices of the court.
- Judge is going to be wondering will entertaining the case be a waste of court time and they will have to adjourn or dismiss half way through because you of your lack of experience. Despite your best efforts and what you may think, you may in actuality have a half baked case, riddled with technical legal omissions, oversights and mistakes because of ignorance of the law, the practical intricacies of its application, and a lack of knowledge of courtroom practices and procedures.

It just doesn't come across well, or show that you are genuinely serious about the case.

Also, make no bones about it - the other side will have experienced legal representation who have been through this rodeo a thousand times and know all the usual tactics and pitfalls. How do you feel about being cross examined by them? Without legal representation you are putting yourself at a huge disadvantage from the get go.

It could go a number of ways....

- Judge could decide that with the other side well represented, and you not so, you won't have the same opportunity for a fair and balanced hearing without representation and they'd adjourn the case until such time that you have had professional legal advice and are adequately represented.
- Judge might hear your case and dismiss it if you have basic omissions, oversights or mistakes in your legal work which the judge considers rudimentary errors which amount to a de facto wasting of the court's time and disrespecting of the normal customs and practices of the courts - (there will be plenty other substantive cases which parties are taking seriously which would be glad of the time in front of a judge)
- Of course, Judge could hear the case and it could go in your favour with a judgement. (good luck collecting it because you you have miniscule chance of getting anything. You won't get a bean realistically.)

I said it before, but you really are on a hiding to nothing. You are trying to prove a point, but to who and will they give a damn? It is coming across moreso as a personal vendetta.

If you are serious about it, just get a solictor for advice. Either way anyway, I cannot see you getting anything over it.

For starters if you went to a solictor, they would know the usual procedures for getting information from the Gardai. By you ringing around through back channels and letters here and there, you are getting people's backs up and annoying them, so they will be less inclined towards assisting you.

You are really going about this totally the wrong way. And that right there reinforces my overall point - you are ignorant of the usual practices and procedures for taking something like this to the courts. That is why you have a solicitor - they know the drill and are experienced and know what to do and how to do it.

looksee

OP I have a great deal of sympathy for your situation, I agree it is not just or reasonable that an under 18 year old can do deliberate damage to your property and there be no consequences.

I have no idea of the legal situation, but I am sympathetic to your situation. You have been told pretty much unanimously that you are at nothing and have no rights in trying to claim any of your costs back. I absolutely agree that it could have been €20,000 or €200,000 that you lost out on, or you could be someone on a low income to whom €2,000 is an impossible amount of money.

You know that you will have to write off the 2,000 in the end, but would it be worth putting the energy you are expending on this towards getting news papers and feature writers interested in this injustice. Maybe start a website asking for other people's examples of this kind of thing, checking through newspaper court reports looking for examples of vandalism resulting in loss to individuals, and hope to get some sort of change in the law, or a fund from which recompense can be paid? Get a lot of information together and go to a current affairs programme to get it aired, it might be more useful in the end.

54and56

looksee wrote: »

OP I have a great deal of sympathy for your situation, I agree it is not just or reasonable that an under 18 year old can do deliberate damage to your property and there be no consequences.

I have no idea of the legal situation, but I am sympathetic to your situation. You have been told pretty much unanimously that you are at nothing and have no rights in trying to claim any of your costs back. I absolutely agree that it could have been €20,000 or €200,000 that you lost out on, or you could be someone on a low income to whom €2,000 is an impossible amount of money.

You know that you will have to write off the 2,000 in the end, but would it be worth putting the energy you are expending on this towards getting news papers and feature writers interested in this injustice. Maybe start a website asking for other people's examples of this kind of thing, checking through newspaper court reports looking for examples of vandalism resulting in loss to individuals, and hope to get some sort of change in the law, or a fund from which recompense can be paid? Get a lot of information together and go to a current affairs programme to get it aired, it might be more useful in the end.

Hi Looksee,

Thanks for taking the time to comment and sharing your interesting suggestion.

There have been many expert and interesting contributors here and it's been both eye opening and an education.

The whole thread boils down to the following for me:-

1. The protection of minors, which is was well intentioned when established many many decades ago and still has a valid role to play today has now mutated into a minors charter for unbridled anarchy. Young 17 year old men (not adults in the strict legal sense but in the physical Norman Whiteside playing at a world cup final aged 17 years and 41 days sense) can gratuitously vandalise my property and not only will the Youth Diversion programme prevent them from getting a criminal record or being punished in any meaningful manner but the law also provides them with an impenetrable shield thus systematically preventing a victim like me from even the possibility of seeking any form of recompense from them or their parents/guardians via the civil courts. I, the victim, am the only one the law doesn't protect and/or assist.

What sort of perverse and twisted "justice" is that?

2. For the reasons outlined in #1 above the Guards are completely powerless in relation to minors and I don't envy them the balancing act they are asked to perform i.e. protect society from scrote bags whilst having to treat scrote bags as precious delicate little petals who must be treated with kid gloves knowing if they do put the effort into finding and arresting them they won't be charged or punished. In all fairness that must be massively de-moralising for Guards. Why even bother investigating or doing anything other than going through the motions? Now that I know what I know I'm amazed the Guard who investigated and apprehended the guy who vandalised my property made the effort at all!!

3. "Restorative Justice" is one of the greatest Oxymoron's of all time.

4. There is a strong self interested lobby who want to keep the civil courts shrouded in the sort of traditions, behaviours and customs which can only be navigated by solicitors and by extension ensuring only people who can afford a solicitor should even think of accessing the civil courts. Such barriers keep the status quo in place and that suits some people just fine.

There aren't too many people on this thread who believe it's even worth challenging the situation, most seem to think being the victim and sucking up the cost of same, regardless of how much that is or what the consequences might be for the victim is a price worth paying so long as the precious vandalising petals are protected and the precious courts time isn't wasted by such trivial matters as a Joe Soap like me challenging why the law prevents me from even seeking compensation.

I don't think I have the motivation to go on a crusade Looksee but I might parcel all this up into a nice letter and share that, along with a USB file with a copy of the video I took of my property being vandalised, the letter of admission from the Vandal etc and see if I can get any political traction for change. I more or less accept I'm not going to get any sort of traction on my case but if something eventually changes to prevent this happening to others in the future that would be a positive. Like asking the Guards for the parents / guardians contact details expecting a TD to advocate for change to the existing law might also be a waste of time but you never know.

Little acorns and all that.

GM228

Self interested lobby?

54and56 wrote: »

share that, along with a USB file with a copy of the video I took of my property being vandalised, the letter of admission from the Vandal etc and see if I can get any political traction for change.

You have a copy of the admission letter?

Well thread very carefully, sending it or showing it to someone (including for example a politician) is a criminal offence!

Infernal Racket

GM228 wrote: »

Self interested lobby?




You have a copy of the admission letter?

Well thread very carefully, sending it or showing it to someone (including for example a politician) is a criminal offence!

I think this guy may be taking the Mick at this stage.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

Self interested lobby?




You have a copy of the admission letter?

Well thread very carefully, sending it or showing it to someone (including for example a politician) is a criminal offence!

Maybe I described it incorrectly.

It's a letter from the vandal saying how bored he was and vandalised my property just for kicks and how sorry he is blah blah blah

It's not a copy it's the original and it's not stamped or marked official or anything like that.

It doesn't identify him, just his first name.