Upcoming Police State: New laws with e100 on the spot fines for being drunk in public

Ponster · 17-09-2008 11:04am

CiaranC wrote: »

The article we are discussing (hint: Its in the OP) suggests two fines, one for drunk and disorderly and a lesser one for just being drunk. Try reading the thread before commenting.

We aren't discussing the article. We're discussing the change to the law.

The news article is written in an a way to make you believe that it'll be against the law to be drunk in public. This isn't the case.

CiaranC · 17-09-2008 11:13am

Ponster wrote: »

We aren't discussing the article. We're discussing the change to the law.

The news article is written in an a way to make you believe that it'll be against the law to be drunk in public. This isn't the case.

wtf? We are discussing a change to the law that introduces two new on-the-spot fines, €140 for being drunk and disorderly and €100 for being drunk.

Add another one to the list, they wont use it , they'll only use it on scumbags if they do, and now it doesnt even exist! Doublespeak ftw!

LeahBaby · 17-09-2008 11:16am

Who determines whether your just drunk or drunk and disorderly?

I,myself am a very respectful drunk...

Ponster · 17-09-2008 11:22am

CiaranC wrote: »

wtf? We are discussing a change to the law that introduces two new on-the-spot fines, €140 for being drunk and disorderly and €100 for being drunk.

Ok. So are you against the fact that a Garda can now issue a fine (which can be accepted or refused) for someone breaking the Intoxicating Liquor Act as opposed to the old system where you had to appear in court instead ?

EDIT :

As already posted, this is the 1994 law taken from the

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act

4.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person to be present in any public place while intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.

All the new regulations do is change the 2nd part of the law so that offenders will no longer be convicted (leading to a police record) but will be given the choice of paying a €100 fine or sticking to the 1994 law and going to court.

The text described in section (1) stays the same and clearly dispels the notion that the police now have powers to randomly fine people who are drunk. This is why the BBC article is 'incorrect'.

Ponster · 17-09-2008 11:58am

LeahBaby wrote: »

Who determines whether your just drunk or drunk and disorderly?

I,myself am a very respectful drunk...

Remember you have to considered drunk and in a position to possible endanger yourself (or others) as opposed to be just drunk.

For what it's worth I contacted the Garda Press Office to ask them how 'drunk' (i.e. intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity) would be judged and received the following reply :

As with all legislation it will be implmented in a fair and proportionate manner.
Jim Molloy Sgt.

CDfm · 17-09-2008 12:13pm

CiaranC wrote: »

The article we are discussing (hint: Its in the OP) suggests two fines, one for drunk and disorderly and a lesser one for just being drunk. Try reading the thread before commenting.

im for getting some stocks in the park on bank holidays

the fines can go on old tomatoes flour and water bombs

we can pelt the drunks and generally have a good time just like they do when they go out

ShooterSF · 17-09-2008 12:31pm

Ponster wrote: »

Ok. So are you against the fact that a Garda can now issue a fine (which can be accepted or refused) for someone breaking the Intoxicating Liquor Act as opposed to the old system where you had to appear in court instead ?

EDIT :

As already posted, this is the 1994 law taken from the

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act

All the new regulations do is change the 2nd part of the law so that offenders will no longer be convicted (leading to a police record) but will be given the choice of paying a €100 fine or sticking to the 1994 law and going to court.

The text described in section (1) stays the same and clearly dispels the notion that the police now have powers to randomly fine people who are drunk. This is why the BBC article is 'incorrect'.

Ponster wrote: »

Remember you have to considered drunk and in a position to possible endanger yourself (or others) as opposed to be just drunk.

Fair enough. As I said before I'd prefer to go to court in a situation like this as I'd like a guard to prove that I may have been about to endanger someone. I think I'd have a better chance arguing my case with a judge rather than a guard.
So if I'm still found guilty in a court will I be subject to a £100 fine (approx what €127?) or will I be charged/threatened with an extra fine to question a guards OPINION? (Who is not "Judge judy and executioner"

)

CDfm · 17-09-2008 12:42pm

but its already law

this is enforcement -presumably its about reasonable suspicion or justifiable cause - so if you do a moonie in a public place or shout pig at a garda its not something ya do when sober and could argue spoils a night for other people

Even guards dont want to deal with sloppy drunks and it will be Get yourself off home now -or im giving you a ticket culture.

Quite right too.

Personally videoing incidents and showing them on late night tv would also appeal

LeahBaby · 17-09-2008 12:42pm

I'm thinking of investing in a Garda uniform and hitting town on a Saturday night..

"Excuse Me... Your obviously drunk and potentially a danger to yourself or any ohter fecking eejits with ya...I'm fining you €140...May you learn your lesson*Finger wag*...And if you don't I'll know.. I'm going undercover as a drunken floozy in the smoking area and I'll be watching you!!"

Here's my question..

Surely if your on your way from pub to pub you can be caught being drunk on the street...and can be fined... Would that mean if you go into the pub and continue to drink you can be caught for being disorderly on your way home?

Cause I'm the unlucky fecker that will happen to.

Run_to_da_hills · 17-09-2008 12:51pm

LeahBaby wrote: »

I'm thinking of investing in a Garda uniform and hitting town on a Saturday night..

"Excuse Me... Your obviously drunk and potentially a danger to yourself or any ohter fecking eejits with ya...I'm fining you €140...May you learn your lesson*Finger wag*...And if you don't I'll know.. I'm going undercover as a drunken floozy in the smoking area and I'll be watching you!!"

Here's my question..

Surely if your on your way from pub to pub you can be caught being drunk on the street...and can be fined... Would that mean if you go into the pub and continue to drink you can be caught for being disorderly on your way home?

Cause I'm the unlucky fecker that will happen to.

You could get an assortment of 100 and 140 fines over a short period of time if you keep offending. It would be the same as getting stung by several different wasps on the way home from the pub.

LeahBaby · 17-09-2008 12:54pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You could get an assortment of 100 and 140 fines over a short period of time if you keep offending. It would be the same as getting stung by several different wasps on the way home from the pub.

Surely there's a spray for that..

if i get fined I'm gonna do it in style..

Drink a litre of vodka..(that's drunk ticked)

puking on a garda while interupted from giving H*** on the street (done and done)

ShooterSF · 17-09-2008 12:58pm

CDfm wrote: »

but its already law

this is enforcement -presumably its about reasonable suspicion or justifiable cause - so if you do a moonie in a public place or shout pig at a garda its not something ya do when sober and could argue spoils a night for other people

Even guards dont want to deal with sloppy drunks and it will be Get yourself off home now -or im giving you a ticket culture.

Quite right too.

Personally videoing incidents and showing them on late night tv would also appeal

Yes but that's Drunk And Disorderly which I have no problem with fines for. My problem is the cover-all rule of been drunk which you can now be fined for if a guard thinks you MAY BECOME a nuisance. Ok it's already there but now that they can hit people with a fine without even bringing them to court, which, ok normally I understand for speeding tickets etc as they're cut and dry cases, is insane.
People can say all the like that'll it'll be used with common sense but I have a real problem with that. Take the time to structure the laws so that they make common sense, don't create cover-all laws and allow the guardaí to act as Judges as well.

Run_to_da_hills · 17-09-2008 12:58pm

LeahBaby wrote: »

Surely there's a spray for that..

if i get fined I'm gonna do it in style..

Drink a litre of vodka..(that's drunk ticked)

puking on a garda while interupted from giving H*** on the street (done and done)

On top of that they will take what ever few cans you have under your arm off you so that you can't drown your sorrows when you get home after being done. The combined punishment would be well in excess of e160. :mad:

At least when they raid your house for dope they usually have the decency to leave a roach end in the ash tray when they depart.

CDfm · 17-09-2008 1:13pm

So all the fun loadmouthed party people are coming out and protesting.

Its an attack on my civil liberties it is - me and me mates want to be loud on our way home,barge into people in chippers and vomit on pavements. :mad:

just look at the fines as a cover charge :rolleyes:

beautiation · 17-09-2008 1:18pm

I don't mind the law in principle, but it'll probably end up as an outrageous curtailment of our rights. Most guards overly defensive and paranoid (understandably) and will probably end up punishing simple exuberance which is no threat to anyone, and that's a load of rubbish. And that sizeable minority of scumbag guards will just love this, wouldn't be surprised if some of them took the chance to effectively mug confused drunks who are just trying to get home.

CDfm · 17-09-2008 1:19pm

I think it should be more incentiised for the guards and the revenue ring fenced from government expenditure

it should go into a Garda Xmas bonus fund and they could get points like air miles for convicting criminals like drug dealers and the like and drunks.

Catch a pusher and bring the wife and kids away that kind of thing.

I must be psychic I predicted "an outrageous breach of my civil liberties" so you dont go to court and get off lightly trying to justify your abominable behavior.

TheNog · 17-09-2008 1:31pm

CiaranC wrote: »

The article we are discussing (hint: Its in the OP) suggests two fines, one for drunk and disorderly and a lesser one for just being drunk. Try reading the thread before commenting.

Again there is no such offence as being drunk and disorderly as I have pointed out on page 20 post 286.

Also if you were reading this thread you will understand there is no offence for just being drunk.

Try reading some law on the matter, then read this thread and then make a reply. I have links on both offences on page 20 :rolleyes:

TheNog · 17-09-2008 1:46pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I am talking what is FACT and is exactly what coming out of the Dail from our Government ministers. http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2007/1211/ireland/mheyaucwkfey/

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=243

The material I am writing about is FACT and is coming from respected broad sheet sites such as the BBC and Times on line.

Read both those links again and show me where Bertie Ahern said house parties could or should be raided without a warrant. You cant 'cos it isn't there.

Bertie made a total eejit of himself in this statement that Gardai should raid house parties because if a Garda has no reasonable suspicion that drugs are being used in a house then he/she cannot obtain a warrant and satisfy a judge before he/she grants that warrant.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Why do you hide the truth and say that you CANNOT be done for being drunk in a public place when the law says you can. ITS A e100 EURO FINE !! What rock have you been hiding under for the last few days. Please read this article again from the BBC PRESS http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7616715.stm

Why are you relying on British media to learn about law. Again read Section 4 POA 1994 - Intoxication in a Public Place where a necessary proof for a Garda is to prove that a person was a danger to themselves or others. That is the truth.

ShooterSF · 17-09-2008 1:54pm

TheNog wrote: »

Also if you were reading this thread you will understand there is no offence for just being drunk.

Try reading some law on the matter, then read this thread and then make a reply. I have links on both offences on page 20

TheNog wrote: »

There is no law which makes it an offence to be drunk in public. If you believe there is please provide a link. Quit scaremongering.

Section 4 of the PUblic Order Act 1994 is Intoxication in a Public Place which specifically states a Garda must believe a person to be a danger to themselves or others.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0004.html#zza2y1994s4

There is no drunk and disorderly offence but only disorderly conduct in a public place.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0005.html#zza2y1994s5
Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

Along with the new laws you now have in effect Guards who can fine you on the suspicion of doing something. We are now giving the guardaí the powers of a judge.

Pretty sure also under the old laws they had to hold you in a cell. Is that gone now too? If so, how is a €100 fine going stop this dangerous person from wandering off and hurting themself or others (the reason he was fined in the first place)?

ShooterSF · 17-09-2008 1:55pm

TheNog wrote: »

Read both those links again and show me where Bertie Ahern said house parties could or should be raided without a warrant. You cant 'cos it isn't there.

Bertie made a total eejit of himself in this statement that Gardai should raid house parties because if a Garda has no reasonable suspicion that drugs are being used in a house then he/she cannot obtain a warrant and satisfy a judge before he/she grants that warrant.

Why are you relying on British media to learn about law. Again read Section 4 POA 1994 - Intoxication in a Public Place where a necessary proof for a Garda is to prove that a person was a danger to themselves or others. That is the truth.

And with on the spot fines WHO does he have to prove this to?!!

CDfm · 17-09-2008 1:55pm

TheNog wrote: »

Read both those links again and show me where Bertie Ahern said house parties could or should be raided without a warrant. You cant 'cos it isn't there.

Bertie made a total eejit of himself in this statement that Gardai should raid house parties because if a Garda has no reasonable suspicion that drugs are being used in a house then he/she cannot obtain a warrant and satisfy a judge before he/she grants that warrant.

Why are you relying on British media to learn about law. Again read Section 4 POA 1994 - Intoxication in a Public Place where a necessary proof for a Garda is to prove that a person was a danger to themselves or others. That is the truth.

Its obvious these guys are too far gone to read.

Maybe its time to give their booze soaked brains a rest.

But look on the good side maybe missreading it will keep them quiet and of the streets and thats all good.

Then again you will have to answer all their posts again tomorrow - they wont remember-this thread will run and run Im afraid

TheNog · 17-09-2008 1:59pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough. As I said before I'd prefer to go to court in a situation like this as I'd like a guard to prove that I may have been about to endanger someone. I think I'd have a better chance arguing my case with a judge rather than a guard.
So if I'm still found guilty in a court will I be subject to a £100 fine (approx what €127?) or will I be charged/threatened with an extra fine to question a guards OPINION? (Who is not "Judge judy and executioner" )

The only "judge and jury" will not take place on the street. If you were told you will be issued with an on the spot fine you will be given 1 month to pay. If you agree that you were acting the eejit, pay the fine of €100 and have no conviction. If you do not agree then you will be summonsed to court but you can receive a higher fine (up to €600 odd) and a conviction.

I suppose the whole idea behind the scheme is to keep people away from the courts and convictions.

Run_to_da_hills · 17-09-2008 2:06pm

TheNog wrote: »

Why are you relying on British media to learn about law. Again read Section 4 POA 1994 - Intoxication in a Public Place where a necessary proof for a Garda is to prove that a person was a danger to themselves or others. That is the truth.

The IRISH TIMES is a highly respected paper and is anything British or Tabloid Journalism.

Read again: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0916/1221430254948.html

You are quoting old hat 1994 laws that have been superseded by new 2008 draconian police state legislation.

Then explain to us why there is two subsequent fines of e100 and e140.

Ozziej · 17-09-2008 2:11pm

monosharp wrote: »

I'm In South Korea and have been for 12 months.

I've seen 1 drunken idiot trying to fight the cops the cops just man handled him and brought him to a taxi and sent him home.

Delivery guys casually ride on footpaths to get past traffic, drunken people are everywhere (not causing problems).

Korea is not a police state now.

Its a long time since it was a police state mate.

Ireland IS worse.

Apologies I mean North Korea of course

TheNog · 17-09-2008 2:14pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Along with the new laws you now have in effect Guards who can fine you on the suspicion of doing something. We are now giving the guardaí the powers of a judge.

I can see your point but it is not the case. For these offences there is no suspicion as the Garda can arrest/fine for something he/she witnesses so the evidence that is given in court is fact. There is no suspicion involved.
The Judge will decide or ask questions of the person or Garda to decide if the necessary proofs are there and if to convict or not i.e. give the person a second chance.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Pretty sure also under the old laws they had to hold you in a cell. Is that gone now too? If so, how is a €100 fine going stop this dangerous person from wandering off and hurting themself or others (the reason he was fined in the first place)?

For Sections 4 and 8 an arrest would be necessary. For Section 5 or 6 no arrest is necessary unless the person refuses to desist or refuses to give name and address.

For public order offences there is nothing in law which states a person must be held in a cell for a period of time. There is also the option to bring a person home or have someone collect that person from the station. Indeed a person cannot be held in a cell if they are sober and with all reasonable apprehension will not offend again within that day.

TheNog · 17-09-2008 2:28pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The IRISH TIMES is a highly respected paper and is anything British or Tabloid Journalism.

Read again: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0916/1221430254948.html

You are quoting old hat 1994 laws that have been superseded by new 2008 draconian police state legislation.

Then explain to us why there is two subsequent fines of e100 and e140.

€100 fine for an offence under Section 4 Intoxication in a Public Place

€140 for an offence under Section 5 Disorderly Conduct in a Public Place.

Do you get it now??? Have you read the legislation yet? and have you been able to find where Bertie said Gardai could/should raid houses without a warrant?

Do you consider the way speeding offences are dealt with draconian? Public Order offences are to be dealt with in the same way. A person will still have the right to go to court.

TheNog · 17-09-2008 2:33pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

And with on the spot fines WHO does he have to prove this to?!!

If you agree that you committed an offence then you can pay the fine, if not then you can go to court. Same as a minor road traffic offence such as speeding, no seatbelts, parking etc. Simple as

ShooterSF · 17-09-2008 2:38pm

TheNog wrote: »

I can see your point but it is not the case. For these offences there is no suspicion as the Garda can arrest/fine for something he/she witnesses so the evidence that is given in court is fact. There is no suspicion involved.
The Judge will decide or ask questions of the person or Garda to decide if the necessary proofs are there and if to convict or not i.e. give the person a second chance.

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting things here but are you saying that if a guard suspects you were a danger to someone or yourself that that's all the evidence needed in itself.

If so things are fecked up already!

If not see my post above. As you said yourself it will now either be accept the guards decision and pay €100 or take (your legal entitlement) it to court and face the punishment of €600 fine. So heres the situation, Garda O'Reilly stops me on the street and fines me €100 on the grounds that he thinks I'm a danger to myself or someone else. I argue that I havent done anything wrong. He says either pay the fine or go to court and risk paying €500 more to have a Judge to decide. Worse still him making a reasonable assumption that I POSED a threat may actually be alll the evidence he needs.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

ShooterSF · 17-09-2008 2:40pm

TheNog wrote: »

If you agree that you committed an offence then you can pay the fine, if not then you can go to court. Same as a minor road traffic offence such as speeding, no seatbelts, parking etc. Simple as

Yes but unlike speeding no seatbelts this is the crime of him thinking i am danger. I havent actually DONE anything. Its like an on the spot fine because a guard thought I was going to speed!

Also no problem if I can go to court without the threat of an extra fine to fight my case!

TheNog · 17-09-2008 2:52pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting things here but are you saying that if a guard suspects you were a danger to someone or yourself that that's all the evidence needed in itself.

If so things are fecked up already!

If not see my post above. As you said yourself it will now either be accept the guards decision and pay €100 or take (your legal entitlement) it to court and face the punishment of €600 fine. So heres the situation, Garda O'Reilly stops me on the street and fines me €100 on the grounds that he thinks I'm a danger to myself or someone else. I argue that I havent done anything wrong. He says either pay the fine or go to court and risk paying €500 more to have a Judge to decide. Worse still him making a reasonable assumption that I POSED a threat may actually be alll the evidence he needs.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yes but unlike speeding no seatbelts this is the crime of him thinking i am danger. I havent actually DONE anything. Its like an on the spot fine because a guard thought I was going to speed!

Also no problem if I can go to court without the threat of an extra fine to fight my case!

As an example lets use Section 4 Intoxication in a public place where you must pose a threat of injury to yourself or another person. If you were drunk and simply swaying down the road on a footpath, then you have not committed an offence cos you were not putting yourself or others in danger.

However if you were falling about the place especially onto a road in front of traffic or climbing poles/scaffolding or walking on a bridge wall then you are posing a danger to yourself and others and therefore have committed an offence.

Reasonable apprehension is all that is needed and has been since the public order act was brought into force in 1994. If it goes to court you are still innocent until the judge believes that the guards evidence is credible and convicts. The on the spot fine is for people who will accept there and then they made a mistake.

Upcoming Police State: New laws with e100 on the spot fines for being drunk in public

Comments