Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bail Conditions and how could you enforce them?

«1

Comments

  • #2
    Dayo93
    Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭Dayo93


    So he is still allowed operate as a taxi driver ?


  • #3
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Dayo93 wrote: »
    So he is still allowed operate as a taxi driver ?


    One would assume from the wording that he is, just not allowed any female fares in the front seat of his taxi.


  • #4
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,031 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    So does he have a female only taxi plate? Utter joke of a country.

    Surely his taxi number should be released so every female and people choosing to avoid doing business with someone convicted of sexual assault can take their business elsewhere.


  • #5
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    As he has pleaded guilty he should be barred from operating taxi/hackney services, this restricted bail condition is in essence unworkable as far as I can see!


  • #6
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,226 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    Three sexual assaults and allowed to go on his merry way continuing to do it (yeah like he's gonna tell anyone he's on bail and no females in the front seat)
    Can no one have any cop on to say Judge - you're an idiot! (and the garda for agreeing to it)


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,031 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    This is actually completely unacceptable in a civilised country, I'm in shock.


  • #8
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,226 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    I assume he cannot remove the licence or can he?
    But the bail condition could have been along the lines of any pursuit where he may be in contact with young woman as part of his job...


  • #9
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    fritzelly wrote: »
    Three sexual assaults and allowed to go on his merry way continuing to do it (yeah like he's gonna tell anyone he's on bail and no females in the front seat)
    Can no one have any cop on to say Judge - you're an idiot! (and the garda for agreeing to it)


    Hasn't there already been cases before the higher courts about removing the livelihood of taxi drivers?


  • #10
    Pronto63
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭Pronto63


    Is this for real?

    Surely someone that is a danger to the travelling public shouldn't be allowed to hold a taxi licence.

    Any comment from the drivers rep assoc?


  • #11
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,031 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    MrFresh wrote: »
    Hasn't there already been cases before the higher courts about removing the livelihood of taxi drivers?


    I don't think any sexual assaultists have been.

    "He was a grand fella Joe until he had a female in the cab...."


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,067 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    He pleaded guilty in January 2016, it's now April 2019. It's not the bail is the problem it's the speed at which things are dealt with.
    It's ridiculous something should take that long for the victims and his own sake. Over 3yrs on bail is bannanas.
    What's gone wrong that it's taken this lenght of time.


  • #13
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,005 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    fritzelly wrote: »
    I assume he cannot remove the licence or can he?
    This is the key to it.

    The court has no power to cancel his licence to drive a taxi, and there would be constitutional objections to a bail condition which prevented him from driving a taxi, since there is a constitutional right to earn a livelihood, and this is his livelihood.

    The National Transport Authority does have power to cancel his taxi drivers licence, and presumably will do so in response to this conviction. But even if this happens quite quickly, it won't happen immediately; there's a process, and he has to be given an opportunity to challenge any decision to cancel his licence. Plus, the NTA will presumably want to wait for the results of the psychological assessment so they can take that into account in their decision.

    Which means that there is inevitably going to be at least a short period in which this guy is still licensed to drive a taxi. The bail conditions are an attempt to regulate that period in a way that won't fall foul of constitutional objections.


  • #14
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    This is the key to it.

    The court has no power to cancel his licence to drive a taxi, and there would be constitutional objections to a bail condition which prevented him from driving a taxi, since there is a constitutional right to earn a livelihood, and this is his livelihood.

    The National Transport Authority does have power to cancel his taxi drivers licence, and presumably will do so in response to this conviction. But even if this happens quite quickly, it won't happen immediately; there's a process, and he has to be given an opportunity to challenge any decision to cancel his licence. Plus, the NTA will presumably want to wait for the results of the psychological assessment so they can take that into account in their decision.

    Which means that there is inevitably going to be at least a short period in which this guy is still licensed to drive a taxi. The bail conditions are an attempt to regulate that period in a way that won't fall foul of constitutional objections.
    https://www.transportforireland.ie/clarification-on-taxi-driver-investigation/

    Transport for Ireland are quite adamant that the Gardai not the NTA are responsible for driver licensing and revoking licenses etc. is the Garda remit and indeed they have revoked licenses before.


    https://www.limerickpost.ie/2012/03/20/taxi-driver-fails-in-appeal-to-have-psv-licence-restored/

    It would seem to me that his license could be revoked since his plea of guilty negates any further need of a trial other than sentencing etc. Placing a bail condition of not having female passengers in the front seat is an affront to common sense.


  • #15
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,005 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I take your correction about the guards, not the NTA, having the power to cancel the guy's licence.

    But my point stands. The court doesn't have the power. And the guards only act in response to the court's verdict, and even then there is presumably a process which the guards must follow. So inevitably there will be some lapse of time between the conviction and the cancellation.

    I've checked. Under the Taxi Regulation Act 2013, there's a mandatory disqualification from holding an SPSV driver licence on conviction of certain offences. It's not clear from the newspaper report whether the offences of which this guy was convicted are among those which result in an automatic disqualification, but I suspect they are. But the disqualifiation only takes effect when the time for appealing has expired or, if an appeal is brought, when the appeal is lost or withdrawn. So the bail conditions would operate in the meantime.

    If the offence isn't one that attracts automatic disqualification, the SPSV licence can still be cancelled if the licensing authority is "satisfied that the holder of the licence is no longer a suitable person to hold a licence". And while I think it's highly likely that the guards would take that view, the court can't assume they will and, in any event, may still think there is merit in imposing bail conditions to operate until that happens. And it will take time; the licence holder has to be notified of the intent to cancel the licence, and told of the reasons, and has to have 14 days to make representations, which the authorities must consider before they revoke the licence. And, if they do revoke the licence, the licence holder has 28 days to appeal to the District Court, and the revocation doesn't take effect until that appeal is decided or withdrawn.

    So, pending cancellation of the licence, the only options open to the court are (a) impose no restrictions at all on the guy's taxi-driving activities, or (b) impose such restrictions as will not be struck down as unconstitutional or improper. Which option do you want the court to take?


  • #16
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I take your correction about the guards, not the NTA, having the power to cancel the guy's licence.

    But my point stands. The court doesn't have the power. And the guards only act in response to the court's verdict, and even then there is presumably a process which the guards must follow. So inevitably there will be some lapse of time between the conviction and the cancellation.

    I've checked. Under the Taxi Regulation Act 2013, there's a mandatory disqualification from holding an SPSV driver licence on conviction of certain offences. It's not clear from the newspaper report whether the offences of which this guy was convicted are among those which result in an automatic disqualification, but I suspect they are. But the disqualifiation only takes effect when the time for appealing has expired or, if an appeal is brought, when the appeal is lost or withdrawn. So the bail conditions would operate in the meantime.

    If the offence isn't one that attracts automatic disqualification, the SPSV licence can still be cancelled if the licensing authority is "satisfied that the holder of the licence is no longer a suitable person to hold a licence". And while I think it's highly likely that the guards would take that view, the court can't assume they will and, in any event, may still think there is merit in imposing bail conditions to operate until that happens. And it will take time; the licence holder has to be notified of the intent to cancel the licence, and told of the reasons, and has to have 14 days to make representations, which the authorities must consider before they revoke the licence. And, if they do revoke the licence, the licence holder has 28 days to appeal to the District Court, and the revocation doesn't take effect until that appeal is decided or withdrawn.

    So, pending cancellation of the licence, the only options open to the court are (a) impose no restrictions at all on the guy's taxi-driving activities, or (b) impose such restrictions as will not be struck down as unconstitutional or improper. Which option do you want the court to take?

    Being honest, remand him in custody, sentence him and revoke his license not play around with bail.


  • #17
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,005 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Being honest, remand him in custody, sentence him and revoke his license not play around with bail.
    I repeat; the court has no power to revoke his licence. And, while they will sentence him, for obvious reasons they won't do so until the psychiatric reports are available.


  • #18
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,140 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    If Bail can only be issued in a manner that puts the public at risk why on earth isn't he being held on remand?


  • #19
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,226 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    Sleepy wrote: »
    If Bail can only be issued in a manner that puts the public at risk why on earth isn't he being held on remand?

    Exactly!


  • #20
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,005 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Sleepy wrote: »
    If Bail can only be issued in a manner that puts the public at risk why on earth isn't he being held on remand?
    Because we don't have a system of preventive detention in Ireland; you can't lock somebody up on the basis that you think he might commit offences in the future; only on the basis of the offences for which has has been charged and convicted. And he hasn't yet been sentenced for those.

    If a custodial sentence were inevitable, then he probably would be remanded pending sentencing. But if the judge feels that it's not inevitable, then it's not appropriate to remand in custody.


  • #21
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Because we don't have a system of preventive detention in Ireland; you can't lock somebody up on the basis that you think he might commit offences in the future; only on the basis of the offences for which has has been charged and convicted. And he hasn't yet been sentenced for those.


    Does Section 2 of the Bail Act not cover the prevention of serious offences?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    MrFresh wrote: »
    Does Section 2 of the Bail Act not cover the prevention of serious offences?

    It only applies to a person charged with certain serious offences with a potential 5 year plus sentence.


  • #23
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,734 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/taxi-driver-sexually-assaulted-three-young-vulnerable-women-916667.html

    Now just how on earth is that supposed to work?

    Who set the bail conditions?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #24
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,005 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Who set the bail conditions?
    The court.


  • #25
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,202 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The court has no power to cancel his licence to drive a taxi, and there would be constitutional objections to a bail condition which prevented him from driving a taxi, since there is a constitutional right to earn a livelihood, and this is his livelihood.
    how generally can that be interpreted? if there is a right to *a* livelihood, does that grant a right to a specific livelihood?
    we would not expect a youth worker awaiting sentencing for child abuse to be able to claim a constitutional right to continue with their job; and i know it's a much narrower 'use case' but i would not expect my employer to heed complaints about constitutional due process once i was fired after admitting to serious criminal offences.


  • #26
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,005 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    how generally can that be interpreted? if there is a right to *a* livelihood, does that grant a right to a specific livelihood?
    No. But it does give grounds for a constitutional objection to bail conditions which prevent you from earning your livelihood.
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    we would not expect a youth worker awaiting sentencing for child abuse to be able to claim a constitutional right to continue with their job; and i know it's a much narrower 'use case' but i would not expect my employer to heed complaints about constitutional due process once i was fired after admitting to serious criminal offences.
    If the defendant was employed as a taxi driver, there's nothing to stop his employer firing him. But the court doesn't employ him, and so can't fire him. Similarly, the court doesn't licence him to drive a taxi, and so can't cancel his licence.

    And this it the key to it. The court can't set bail conditions as a back-door way of doing something the court has no right or power to do. The Oireachtas hasn't given the court power to suspend or cancel taxi licences; the court can't used bail conditions as a way of grabbing that power. The licensing authority may suspend or cancel the guy's licence, but the courts can't pre-empt that any mroe than the NTA can.


  • #27
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No. But it does give grounds for a constitutional objection to bail conditions which prevent you from earning your livelihood.

    +1, and it would not be the first time Bail has become the subject of a constitutional challenge, in fact provisions of the Bail Act 1997 are pretty much a direct effect of the last major Bail Constitutional challenge, namely the Supreme Court People (Attorney General) vs O’Callaghan [1966] IR 501 case and the resulting so-called O'Callaghan Rules which only allowed for Bail to be used as a means to prevent possible escape from justice.

    Following the 16th Amendment of the Constitution and the insertion of Article 40.6.6 the 1997 Act was enacted and the so-called O'Callaghan Rules were furthered upon and allowed Bail to be used as more than a means to prevent escape from justice.


  • #28
    dcr22B
    Registered Users Posts: 2,528 ✭✭✭dcr22B


    Can I just add that this individual's car licence lapsed in November 2018 but he is still showing up on the NTA Driver Check App as active (licence expiry 2023) but with no vehicle assigned to him.


  • #29
    Pronto63
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭Pronto63


    Listening to The Last Word on TodayFM this evening and the Garda press office contacted the show to state that his licence was revoked in Feb


  • #30
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,163 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1116415718109716485


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    ED E wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1116415718109716485

    I note with interest that the term "The Taxi licence was revoked" not that HIS licence was revoked, possibly a typo but I'd be looking for clarification on Vehicle ( SPSV ) licence or Driver ( SPSV ) licence
    Following conviction the Garda Carriage Office was immediately
    notified and the taxi licence (SPSV) was revoked in Feb with immediate
    effect.


Advertisement