Protecting Emergency workers

uberwolf

In addressing the AGSI conference McDowell brought up the prospect of amending the Criminal Justice Bill to make it a specific crime to assault an emergency worker going about his or her work.

Apparently last time this was mooted the list extended to about 40 different sections of the civil service who work with the public (tax inspectors, etc).

I interned with the fire brigade last summer and I was appalled when I learnt that the fireman were frequently assaulted performing their work. No sooner in one instance had they carried a family to safety from a burning house and put out the fire were they set upon by these people neighbours and stoned out of the estate.

So I can appreciate the angle on this one, impeding the emergency services is appalling. But at the same time I'm a little wary of affording extra protection to anyone in particular - because it creates tiers. Surely there should be sufficent protection afforded by current legislation to every citizen of this state and the courts could use their discretion to assess to scale of the crime.

McDowell may amend Bill to protect emergency workers
Conor Lally


Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has said he will consider a call by gardaí to make it a specific criminal offence to impede or assault emergency services workers going about their duties.



At the opening of the AGSI annual conference last night, Mr McDowell said the creation of such an offence could realistically be introduced and may even happen in the near future.

"The Criminal Justice Bill is going through the Dáil at the moment and I'm certainly open to an amendment of the criminal law of that kind," he said. "It was contemplated before in 1997 and in the context of the Public Order Act and, at that stage, the shortlist of protected occupations somehow extended up to 40 by the time all the trade unions concerned were consulted.

"So I would have to keep it a narrow focused offence, which would protect those who are most vulnerable, rather than a broad thing, which covers everybody from tax inspectors to community welfare officers.

"I think we can do it, and I think there are some people, particularly fire officers and ambulance [ crews] and people like that, who deserve protection and who deserve additional protection by making it an offence to obstruct them or impede them as is the case with gardaí."

Delegates at the AGSI conference will consider a motion calling on its national executive to lobby for the new offence. The motion seeks to make it a new criminal offence to threaten, impede or obstruct anybody trying to preserve the life or health of another.

Fire chief warns of risks as North's fire crews attacked
Gerry Moriarty, Northern Editor




A Northern Ireland fire chief has warned that the lives of firefighters and the public are being put at serious risk after a spate of attacks on fire crews in Belfast, Newtownards, Co Down, and Lurgan, Co Armagh.

In an eight-hour period through Sunday night into early yesterday morning, there were five such attacks on fire crews responding to emergency call-outs. The firefighters were attacked with stones and other missiles in east and west Belfast, Lurgan and Newtownards.

One fire engine was damaged in the attack while one officer was struck on the arm by a stone, but escaped serious injury.

Such incidents are a regular feature of the lives of Northern Ireland fire crews and ambulance workers who, especially at weekends, are targeted by vandals.

Senior fire officer Graham Crossett complained that these attacks were continuing despite a campaign to stop them. He said it was pure luck that nobody was seriously injured in the most recent attacks.

"This is just madness," he added. "The lives of firefighters and the public are being put at risk."

The attacks happened as the fire and ambulance services, the PSNI and BT joined forces to launch a campaign against the growing incidence of hoax call outs of the emergency services.

The services believe that the main culprits are in the nine to 14- year-old age group who, especially at school holiday time, make fake 999 calls.

Last Easter the fire brigade received more than 700 hoax calls, a 20 per increase over the same period in 2003.

With the text-style message "We Know Who U R", the services are warning that they will be extra vigilant in tracking people who make such calls.

Hobbes

I'm for it. Treat it as a serious crime.

For the 14 year old muppets, slap some serious fines on the parents and community service for the kids.

skywalker

uberwolf wrote:

So I can appreciate the angle on this one, impeding the emergency services is appalling. But at the same time I'm a little wary of affording extra protection to anyone in particular - because it creates tiers. Surely there should be sufficent protection afforded by current legislation to every citizen of this state and the courts could use their judgement to assess to scale of the crime.

that was my first thought when I heard of this.

A Dub in Glasgo

It does create a tiered approach but we have that anyway with respect to violence directed at the police.

The emergency workers are putting themselves into this terrible position as part of their job and I think there is some merit to this especially if the violence directed towards them disables their ability to carry out emergency work.

SkepticOne

uberwolf wrote:

I interned with the fire brigade last summer and I was appalled when I learnt that the fireman were frequently assaulted performing their work. No sooner in one instance had they carried a family to safety from a burning house and put out the fire were they set upon by these people neighbours and stoned out of the estate.

Was anyone arrested and charged with assault for this? Assuming there wasn't, then I can't see the point in creating a special offence if the existing laws aren't enforced. No protection is provided in either case.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

landser

uberwolf wrote:

So I can appreciate the angle on this one, impeding the emergency services is appalling. But at the same time I'm a little wary of affording extra protection to anyone in particular - because it creates tiers. Surely there should be sufficent protection afforded by current legislation to every citizen of this state and the courts could use their discretion to assess to scale of the crime.

there is protection there for the state services under existing legislation, as there is for all persons in the state, but McDowell recognises that these people, at the request of the state, put themselves in a vulnerable position. What is envisaged is something along the lines of a section 40 offence, whereby killing a garda who is acting in the course of his duties attracts a 40 year sentence (?). the key here is that the garda has to be acting in the course of his duties. if i kill an off duty garda who is not so acting, it is ordinary murder.

I agree with this legislation. The people mentioned above put themselves at increased peril through the very nature of their job and they do it on our behalf. Without their work, the state would cease to function as a cohesive unit. Natutrally, the extent of to whom such protection was afforded needs to be clarified, but, i would se no problem extending it to Tax Inspectors, traffic wardens etc., who, while in the course of their duties, are single out for harassment and violent conduct against their persons or property.

flogen

It does create a tier of some kind, but I won't complain if it happens. As has been said, these people put themselves forward to save lives and assist people and should have as much protection from risk as possible (god knows firefighters have enough risk to deal with without having to worry about some rock-throwing scumbags).

It's not like assault on a regular citizen isn't a crime either, but when emergency service personel are directly targetted simply because they are doing their job then it's a different case, just like the afore mentioned extra penalty for murdering an on duty officer

flogen

uberwolf

If I, as one of these scum, am contemplating stoning fire engine or swinging a hatchet at a firemans head after he's recusitated my wife (this happened) I am not contemplating the length of a jail sentence may be different to going outside and swinging at a randomer.

The problem here, as has been pointed out, is enforcement. No one truely believes that they will be hald accountable for their actions and so they act with impunity.

This clause is window dressing. I utterly appreciate that someone working on the states behalf has been put in danger by the state and should therefore be afforded the protection of the state to the fullest extent.

What I think is that instead of providing for this in legislature concentrate on catching these and other antisocials, and rely on the discretion of the judiciary to punish those involved in cases such as those I've described

landser

uberwolf wrote:

.The problem here, as has been pointed out, is enforcement.

I cannot disagree with you on this point. Without enforcment, any law is useless. However, this does not mean that extra punishment should not follow on from an attack on an arm of the state.