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

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

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.

So a minor was bored, vandalised your property and then writes you a letter of apology, that's a first!

I thought you just knew what he looked like via your CCTV and had no name? Unless I previously took that up wrong?

whippet

There is nothing stopping you pursuing a civil case here ... nothing.

The criminal case has been dealt with.

You are free to do all your research and study all the law books you want and take a civil action to seek compensation.

What you are missing is the identity of the person you want to take action against. This is up to you to legally find this information. Like with all civil actions you need to know who you are taking the action against.

It is just that the guards are not allowed to hand over the child’s identity to you.

So .. by all means pursue this ... but as others have said you are on and hiding to nothing.

54and56

I was done with this nonsense but it was on the front page so I shall dip back in to point out 2 things;

The charter which the op seems so absolutely obsessed with doesn't say Gardai will respond to every single letter they get. It states they will treat you with respect, they did.

Two, the super did not, despite what the op claimed, suggest the youth office would or could provide information. He merely says they may be able to offer assistance to you (as a victim)

Would you have been happy with a genuine and obvious pfo? I think not.

54and56 wrote: »

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

Having been involved in a number of restorative justice initiatives I have seen it have a very positive effect for victims and offenders alike.

Of course that's when it's done right.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

So a minor was bored, vandalised your property and then writes you a letter of apology, that's a first!

Ah C'mon GM228, pay attention. I stated "Juvenile writes letter admitting guilt and apologising etc etc" in post #1!!

Here ya go in case you don't believe me. I've removed any identifying info and it's signed with just a first name which I'm obviously not going to show.

See, you're learning on this thread too

GM228 wrote: »

I thought you just knew what he looked like via your CCTV and had no name? Unless I previously took that up wrong?

I know exactly what he looks like (thank you HD CCTV) and his first name.

54and56

whippet wrote: »

There is nothing stopping you pursuing a civil case here ... nothing.

The criminal case has been dealt with.

You are free to do all your research and study all the law books you want and take a civil action to seek compensation.

What you are missing is the identity of the person you want to take action against. This is up to you to legally find this information. Like with all civil actions you need to know who you are taking the action against.

It is just that the guards are not allowed to hand over the child’s identity to you.

So .. by all means pursue this ... but as others have said you are on and hiding to nothing.

And that in a nutshell is my issue. We made a law that prevents the Guards from providing the victim of a crime with the contact details of the (admitted) vandal so the victim can seek (whether successful or not) recourse to the civil courts.

In what universe is that in any way equitable to the victim?

Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that if you don't want to be left out of pocket you shouldn't be a good citizen and call the Guards but somehow deal with the matter directly yourself? What sort of chaos would ensue if that's the only avenue left open to people in my situation?

54and56

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I was done with this nonsense but it was on the front page so I shall dip back in to point out 2 things;

The charter which the op seems so absolutely obsessed with doesn't say Gardai will respond to every single letter they get. It states they will treat you with respect, they did.

Two, the super did not, despite what the op claimed, suggest the youth office would or could provide information. He merely says they may be able to offer assistance to you (as a victim)

Your selective mis quoting of the Charter doesn't justify your point Niner. The Charter (which may be just a cynical corporate joke according to some) says the Gardai will "always" treat you with dignity and respect when you contact us regardless of how, where or for what reason".

Unless the words always, regardless and reason have changed their meaning recently that means they are obliged to reply to the simple and understandable request I submitted at the direction of my local Super. It of course doesn't mean they have to give me the info I seek, if the law prevents them as so many have stated I'll have to accept that (which I've also stated several times) but they will have to reply to me eventually.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Would you have been happy with a genuine and obvious pfo? I think not.

My happiness is irrelevant. I'd have accepted a definitive response which would have been the case if the local Super hadn't decided to refer me on to the Youth Diversion section.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Having been involved in a number of restorative justice initiatives I have seen it have a very positive effect for victims and offenders alike.

Of course that's when it's done right.

Given what you've read here and you're experience in this area do you think my outcome is a good example of Restorative Justice? What marks out of 10 would you give the handling of my situation purely from a Restorative Justice perspective? Is a soppy letter saying sorry I won't do it again but not covering the €2,000 cost of the damage an acceptable outcome?

54and56

Infernal Racket wrote: »

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

I really wasn't, bet you're surprised now?

whippet

54and56 wrote: »

And that in a nutshell is my issue. We made a law that prevents the Guards from providing the victim of a crime with the contact details of the (admitted) vandal so the victim can seek (whether successful or not) recourse to the civil courts.

In what universe is that in any way equitable to the victim?

Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that if you don't want to be left out of pocket you shouldn't be a good citizen and call the Guards but somehow deal with the matter directly yourself? What sort of chaos would ensue if that's the only avenue left open to people in my situation?

Due to your situation you are looking at this issue with blinkers ... yes in this case it makes it very hard for you to be able to find the persons details to pursue compensation... but the law exists in order to give children (17 is still a child) the opportunity not to have a childish incident destroy their lives.

Even if the child was prosecuted ... got 6 months detention in oberstown ... you still would have to take a civil action yourself and you would have had to ‘find’ his details yourself.

54and56

whippet wrote: »

Due to your situation you are looking at this issue with blinkers ... yes in this case it makes it very hard for you to be able to find the persons details to pursue compensation... but the law exists in order to give children (17 is still a child) the opportunity not to have a childish incident destroy their lives.

Even if the child was prosecuted ... got 6 months detention in oberstown ... you still would have to take a civil action yourself and you would have had to ‘find’ his details yourself.

I don't object to the law giving a minor a 2nd chance so to speak if what they did was a childish incident as you say, no problem with that whatsoever. Destroying someone's life over something like that would be very harsh and counter productive for both the child and society. Which of us hasn't done something stupid we later regretted and were (or would have been) grateful for being treated leniently?

What I totally object to is that same law going so far as to also shielding the minor and his parents from even the possibility of allowing the victim to seek financial accountability.

It would do this youth no harm to have to somehow make good the damage he did even if that meant small payments over a long period of time. He'd understand the concept of responsibility for his actions.

That would be a good thing for both him and society as a whole.

whippet

54and56 wrote: »

I don't object to the law giving a minor a 2nd chance so to speak if what they did was a childish incident as you say, no problem with that whatsoever. Destroying someone's life over something like that would be very harsh and counter productive for both the child and society. Which of us hasn't done something stupid we later regretted and were (or would have been) grateful for being treated leniently?

What I totally object to is that same law going so far as to also shielding the minor and his parents from even the possibility of allowing the victim to seek financial accountability.

It would do this youth no harm to have to somehow make good the damage he did even if that meant small payments over a long period of time. He'd understand the concept of responsibility for his actions.

That would be a good thing for both him and society as a whole.

The guards have no role in victims getting compensation... they are only involved in the criminal aspect.

You can of course pursue a civil case .... and like all civil cases it is up to you to find the identity of the respondent.

The guards are not ‘shielding’ anyone ... they have decided on the best course of action from a criminal point of view.

54and56

whippet wrote: »

The guards have no role in victims getting compensation... they are only involved in the criminal aspect.

Not true, the Gardai do pass details of criminals to victims who have to seek recompense via the civil courts, how do you think someone left in a wheelchair by an uninsured hit and run driver finds out who to sue for compensation?

whippet wrote: »

You can of course pursue a civil case .... and like all civil cases it is up to you to find the identity of the respondent.

See above.

whippet wrote: »

The guards are not ‘shielding’ anyone ... they have decided on the best course of action from a criminal point of view.

I don't disagree, it's the law that's shielding the vandal not the Gardai per se. Based on my interaction with the investigating Garda, who has offered to be a witness should I get an opportunity to take a civil case, and discussing this with friends who are Guards they universally tell me they feel completely hamstrung by the current legislation in relation to Youth Diversion etc and that whilst there are grounds and circumstances where it should be used it's almost universal application without due consideration for the impact on the victim is entirely counter productive as it grants young vandals a free pass do do whatever they want with impunity.

whippet

54and56 wrote: »

Not true, the Gardai do pass details of criminals to victims who have to seek recompense via the civil courts, how do you think someone left in a wheelchair by an uninsured hit and run driver finds out who to sue for compensation?

.

As has been pointed out .. the road traffic acts legislate for this.

Also .. the MBI pays the compensation from a fund that all other insured drivers contribute to.

In this case the compensation will not be from the drivers .. however the guards can follow a criminal prosecution separate to the insurance claim.

L1011

54and56 wrote: »

Not true, the Gardai do pass details of criminals to victims who have to seek recompense via the civil courts, how do you think someone left in a wheelchair by an uninsured hit and run driver finds out who to sue for compensation?

You're compensated by the MIBI. The uninsured driver is unlikely to have funds to pay for it

You are getting yourself *very* worked up over an absolute no hoper of a case that is at best going to cost you time and money to result in the local Gardai assuming you're troublesome and at worst will give you a heart attack from stress you are entirely bringing on yourself.

Make your decision on an insurance claim and move on

silver2020

has anyone ever been on a roundabout with no exits?

Infernal Racket

silver2020 wrote: »

has anyone ever been on a roundabout with no exits?

Perfect analogy for this thread. The OP doesn't take advice well.

hullaballoo

Stop that, Infernal Racket.

54and56

Seems like you three boys enjoy roundabouts given your continuing contributions

GM228

whippet wrote: »

There is nothing stopping you pursuing a civil case here ... nothing.

Other than the next to impossible situation of getting judgement against a child, a man of straw, or even successfully initiating proceedings in the first place against a child in their own name as defendant.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

Ah C'mon GM228, pay attention. I stated "Juvenile writes letter admitting guilt and apologising etc etc" in post #1!!

I assumed that was to the Gardai, not you.

54and56 wrote: »

Here ya go in case you don't believe me. I've removed any identifying info and it's signed with just a first name which I'm obviously not going to show.

See, you're learning on this thread too

<snipped away that picture>

I know exactly what he looks like (thank you HD CCTV) and his first name.

Oh dear, as I already said be very careful, it's a criminal offence to release anything which is likely to (not that it actually does) identify someone admitted to the diversion programme, handwriting can identify someone.

GM228

54and56 wrote: »

and discussing this with friends who are Guards

Wait, what, so not only do you have a "guy" who is a solicitor, but you also have friends who are Guards, and yet you still question why and want Garda confirmation as to why they can't give you the details you requested?

Any Guard (and the solicitor guy) will tell you the answer you want, it's week one stuff at Templemore.

whippet

GM228 wrote: »

Other than the next to impossible situation of getting judgement against a child, a man of straw, or even successfully initiating proceedings in the first place against a child in their own name as defendant.

hence when I used the word 'pursue' as we all know its pissing in the wind territory here

54and56

54and56 wrote: »

Your selective mis quoting of the Charter doesn't justify your point Niner. The Charter (which may be just a cynical corporate joke according to some) says the Gardai will "always" treat you with dignity and respect when you contact us regardless of how, where or for what reason".

Unless the words always, regardless and reason have changed their meaning recently that means they are obliged to reply to the simple and understandable request I submitted at the direction of my local Super. It of course doesn't mean they have to give me the info I seek, if the law prevents them as so many have stated I'll have to accept that (which I've also stated several times) but they will have to reply to me eventually.




My happiness is irrelevant. I'd have accepted a definitive response which would have been the case if the local Super hadn't decided to refer me on to the Youth Diversion section.



Given what you've read here and you're experience in this area do you think my outcome is a good example of Restorative Justice? What marks out of 10 would you give the handling of my situation purely from a Restorative Justice perspective? Is a soppy letter saying sorry I won't do it again but not covering the €2,000 cost of the damage an acceptable outcome?

My opinion of you would get me carded. Ill take a thread ban (Hullaboo save me) but I like the area.

Your posts read like that of a narrow minded, condescending and above all, arrogant person. Multiple more educated and experienced people have pointed out your issues but you know better. The CHILD has no money. What do you intend to take from him? His Playstation?

If my friends behaved like you when picking my brain, I would be pissed off. Do you tell them they are wrong as well?

Good luck with your futile cause, perhaps when the judge tells you that you are wrong, you will finally accept it

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

I assumed that was to the Gardai, not you.

Always tricky making assumptions. I've fallen foul many times hence I'd rather get official confirmation from AGS that they can't issue the info I need to pursue a civil case than assume strangers on the interweb, expert as they certainly appear to be, are correct.

GM228 wrote: »

Oh dear, as I already said be very careful, it's a criminal offence to release anything which is likely to (not that it actually does) identify someone admitted to the diversion programme, handwriting can identify someone.

I am conscious of that hence the redactions. I won't lose any sleep ref the risk that someone can identify the vandal from his handwriting.

54and56

GM228 wrote: »

Wait, what, so not only do you have a "guy" who is a solicitor,

Not sure what the tone and quotes is intended to imply other I know a solicitor fairly well. I've already explained that I don't want to get his input until my request to AGS has been definitively responded to.

GM228 wrote: »

but you also have friends who are Guards

Yes, three in particular. One who is a serving Guard who was my best man and two who I've known and been friends with for donkey's years who are Sargent or above rank. The best man is a country Guard who speaks very plainly and told me in no uncertain terms his opinion on the whole Youth Diversion bureau and what they are like to deal with. Due to lockdown I haven't been in the company of the others since the event so can't confirm their views but I've a good idea where their opinions would be based on past statements they've made.

GM228 wrote: »

and yet you still question why and want Garda confirmation as to why they can't give you the details you requested?

Yes because I haven't as yet had a definitive response and I want that before I consider getting my solicitors opinion.

GM228 wrote: »

Any Guard (and the solicitor guy) will tell you the answer you want, it's week one stuff at Templemore.

The local super didn't and had the perfect chance to. In fact it took an extra effort on his behalf to ref me to the Youth Diversion Super when he didn't need to.

As I'm sure you know by now I accept AGS may not be able to provide me with the info I've requested. My only beef with them is not getting a reply to the registered letter and email I sent back in January. Once I have that (and I will get it) my engagement with AGS will be over.

Captain_Crash

54and56 wrote: »

I'd rather get official confirmation from AGS that they can't issue the info I need.

Hang on... You posted the very reply you got from the Guards a few pages back, which not only confirmed to you they can’t give you the info you want, but also pointed you to the specific legislation preventing them from doing so?!?

whippet

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Hang on... You posted the very reply you got from the Guards a few pages back, which not only confirmed to you they can’t give you the info you want, but also pointed you to the specific legislation preventing them from doing so?!?

Are you surprised ? He has been speaking with guards and solicitor friends and yet still needed to come to a web forum to get further ‘advise’ ... and yet still awaits the elusive response that isn’t going to happen before proceeding in to a process which he knows won’t happen ..... but but but ..... he will !!!

I'm hoping for a Hollywood style ending to this where the Super calls him into his office and says he has a copy of the report with the kids name in it sitting right there on his desk. But unfortunately he's legally prevented from sharing the report. And then he excuses himself for five minutes to go to the jacks.

GM228

I'm looking forward to the forthcoming 54and56 vs A (a minor) [2021] IEHC 101 judgement, it's going to be the new Rule 101 reading for all the judiciary, legal scholars, solicitors and barristers alike.

54and56

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

My opinion of you would get me carded. Ill take a thread ban (Hullaboo save me) but I like the area.

Your posts read like that of a narrow minded, condescending and above all, arrogant person.

There's no need to be getting upset Niner, you don't have to put up with my posts. Try the unfollow button, it might help with your pent up anger.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Multiple more educated and experienced people have pointed out your issues but you know better. The CHILD has no money. What do you intend to take from him? His Playstation?

Apparently as he's U18 he doesn't have a Playstation so "no", I don't expect to take something from him he can't have.

What I would like to do is make him or his parents financially accountable even if that means paying €5 a month from his 18th birthday until the €2,000 cost of his vandalism is cleared.

You may disagree with the idea of personal accountability and are feel ok that victims of such gratuitous vandalism just have to suck up the cost, regardless of the value of the damage done whether €2,000, €20,000 or €200,000, as that is somehow for the greater good.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. No problem.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If my friends behaved like you when picking my brain, I would be pissed off. Do you tell them they are wrong as well?

Nope, they're my friends. I asked one of my Garda friends his opinion, he gave me a blunt response we discussed it briefly alongside IIRC a discussion of how well Leeds Utd were going to do in the PL this year just before the first match of the season (Vs Liverpool) which we watched together in a pub and had a very nice evening. One of the last outings pre autumn lockdown

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Good luck with your futile cause, perhaps when the judge tells you that you are wrong, you will finally accept it

If a judge makes a ruling (should I ever get there) of course I'll accept it.

What I won't accept is that I should just roll over and suck up the cost of the gratuitous vandalism inflicted on me "because nothing can be done". I don't accept such defeatist thinking. Rules are man made and can be man changed. It just takes focus, articulation, justification and political momentum to secure legislative change.

I'm not naive enough to think I'll secure such change but if I can bang the drum and others bang the drum and the drum gets loud enough change can happen.

The easy option would be to do nothing.

54and56

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Hang on... You posted the very reply you got from the Guards a few pages back, which not only confirmed to you they can’t give you the info you want, but also pointed you to the specific legislation preventing them from doing so?!?

Did you not read the final sentence of the reply or are you just choosing to ignore it?

I'm kind of wishing the final sentence was removed myself now