Civil claim v criminal trial

You can't sue the Gardaí for actions arising out of their prosecutorial or investigatory functions if that's what your getting at?

Otherwise, a case of negligence is actionable, but, only when outside the remit of their prosecutorial or investigatory functions.

Make a complaint to GSOC and quit relying on a civil case your legal advice doesn't wish to entertain.

Fair enough, but these are unprecedented times in relation to Garda discipline and if you've proof of wrong doing then I'm sure a badge of honour, it would never be.

Either way it appears you have little to lose rattling off an online complaint to the GSOC.

Let me get this straight, you have a family member who is a Guard and have sought legal professional advice, and then came here asking for advice and enquiring what law to read up on? I don't buy that, but let's run with it anyway.

I come from a family of Gardaí and also take a special interest in the Gardaí when it comes to my legal studies in relation to misconduct, breach of rights and all sorts of related matters and I can tell you that your legal professionals and family member are talking s***e (assuming of course that is what they advised) saying judges look the other way and are pro Garda and that a GSOC complaint is like a badge of honour, that's just a load of rubbish.

There's plenty of case law concerning the Gardaí falling foul of Constitutional and statutory requirements, so much so that a breach can and has many times seen a criminal trial collapse.

No, but just trying to gauge how much sympathy we should have for you.

If what you're saying is true, any half decent barrister will get the case thrown out anyway. That would be the time to look at your options.

Bit much to be looking for compo for getting caught breaking the law, IMHO.

Has the criminal trial concluded?

Plenty of solicitors would be all over a provable breech of constitutional rights tbh. The pro-garda stuff is not true.

The issue is that a out of people, when accused are very anti-garda. And sometimes take thier actions when simply doing their job as personal attacks.

I appreciate that a summary and there's no details. But on the face of it.

You don't need a warrant to enter a premises. Did what did they do when in the premises?

What was the threat? Is the threat recorded in the interview? Was it a false confession.

If you came in on your own then it was voluntary. Nobody dragged you there. If you were told it was voluntary at the start you could have left.

If you weren't under arrest you didn't need a solicitor. That doesn't appear to be a lie.

Who interrogated you? A certain amount of question should be expected in an interview. You could have left.

Conflicting how? There's a huge trivial notes to false evidence.

Lying about you location in court? Or where?

The one about affecting a family member doesn't make a lot of sense.

Which constitutional rights do you think have been infringed. I'm not doubting you, but Im sure you can see the above could be anything.

I'm not saying your lying, I just find it odd, very odd in fact that anyone would state such to you, I'm not trying to be rude or make ignorant assumptions either, but, anyone in the profession or a legal advisor is talking rubbish if that is what they are telling you.

On the point of boards, it is actually against the forum charter to seek or give legal advice anyway, we try to deal in the hypothetical, rather than real life situations.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.