Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009

24567

Comments

  • #32
    Holsten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Holsten


    What are they changing?


  • #33
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    A gaurd is not going to do something to jeapordise his carrer for a grudge.

    Frank McBearty was no angel,that whole mess would have been avoided if the gardai had patience.They would have got their man if they went about it properly.

    If you are innocent,you will be grand in court.The Gardai are not going to start dragging people to court over every little thing,they will be told to have cop on.

    This bill will be used to go after those that everyone knows it was brought in for,the drug gangs.

    If nothing was done to combat the scum gang members people would be giving out.When something is done,people give out.The Gardai are not going to turn into the Gestapo overnight ffs.


  • #34
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,320 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Local-womanizer wrote: »
    A gaurd is not going to do something to jeapordise his carrer for a grudge.

    Frank McBearty was no angel,that whole mess would have been avoided if the gardai had patience.They would have got their man if they went about it properly.

    If you are innocent,you will be grand in court.The Gardai are not going to start dragging people to court over every little thing,they will be told to have cop on.

    This bill will be used to go after those that everyone knows it was brought in for,the drug gangs.

    If nothing was done to combat the scum gang members people would be giving out.When something is done,people give out.The Gardai are not going to turn into the Gestapo overnight ffs.


    :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:


  • #35
    Relevant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭Relevant


    Wertz wrote: »
    now any fresh faced rookie out of Templemore can convict you, in theory.
    I would say it will rely on the word of someone Superintendent or higher


  • #36
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Relevant wrote: »
    I would say it will rely on the word of someone Superintendent or higher
    according to reports, Any Garda.

    Its will be mentioned in the 9.00 PM RTE news again.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Wertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,909 ✭✭✭✭Wertz


    Relevant wrote: »
    I would say it will rely on the word of someone Superintendent or higher
    Amended bill wrote:

    71B.—(1) In proceedings under this Part the
    opinion of any member of the Garda Sı´ocha´na
    who appears to the Court to possess the appropriate
    expertise shall, subject to section 74B, be
    admissible in evidence in relation to the issue as to
    25 the existence of a particular criminal organisation.
    (2) In subsection (1) ‘expertise’ means experience,
    specialised knowledge or qualifications.

    &

    “Exclusion of
    evidence in
    certain
    circumstances.
    74B.—Nothing in this Part prevents a court, in
    proceedings thereunder, from excluding evidence
    that would otherwise be admissible if, in its
    opinion, the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs
    its probative value.”.

    So it's open to interpretation IMO (which isn't the opinion of someone trained in law, mind)...technically you could only be a very junior ranking garda and hold specialist knowledge or training in an aspect that may have a bearing on a particular case...

    local-womanizer wrote:
    A gaurd is not going to do something to jeapordise his carrer for a grudge.

    What if they thoiught they'd get away with it? The story of that female garda from Bray the other week shows that members of the force are not above telling porkies to get their own way, consequences or not. The McBrearty case also bears testament to that.

    Whilst reading through some of the bill I also found the subsection on the right to slience...now if you refuse to answer questions during cautioned interview, it can be inferred by your non-responsiveness that you are probably guilty of that with which you are later charged, when used in conjunction with other evidence.
    Amended Bill wrote:
    72A.—(1) Where in any proceedings against a
    person for an offence under this Part evidence is
    given that the defendant at any time before he or
    she was charged with the offence, on being questioned
    by a member of the Garda Sı´ocha´na in
    relation to the offence, failed to answer any question material to the investigation of the offence,
    then the court in determining whether a charge
    should be dismissed under Part IA of the Criminal
    Procedure Act 1967 or whether there is a case to
    answer and the court (or subject to the judge’s
    directions, the jury) in determining whether the
    defendant is guilty of the offence may draw such
    inferences from the failure as appear proper; and
    the failure may, on the basis of such inferences, be
    treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence in relation to the offence,
    but a person shall not be convicted of the offence
    solely or mainly on an inference drawn from such
    a failure.

    A very slippery slope. The only saving grace is the bit at the end.


  • #38
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Uve nothing to worry about if ur a model citizen.

    About time they started cracking down hard on the scum.

    Tell me, have you ever broken a law? I'd say 99% of the population have.
    If there was a stupid law against something you wanted to do, would you honestly not engage in that behaviour even if you could get away with it?


    There should always be clear limits on the power of the governemnt, and any sensible person would be cautious every time the government try to increase that power. Just because there's no dictator doesn't mean that power isn't being abused.


  • #39
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    Tell me, have you ever broken a law? I'd say 99% of the population have.

    Yep, sure everyone caught speedign is goign to have the charge escalated to running a criminal gang and murder. The whole country will be locked up.

    Seriousl, conspiracy people, can you not keep yourselves to your own looney bin forum ?

    It's to tackle organised crime. I'm willing to put myself forward as a test subject for anyoen that can convince some eejit of a gard to try convict me on anything to do with organised crime.


    Why exactly do people think there are hoards of Gardai sitting in stations waiting to be unleashed and frame random innocent people for major organised crime charges?


  • #40
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Stekelly wrote: »
    Yep, sure everyone caught speedign is goign to have the charge escalated to running a criminal gang and murder. The whole country will be locked up.

    Seriousl, conspiracy people, can you not keep yourselves to your own looney bin forum ?

    It's to tackle organised crime. I'm willing to put myself forward as a test subject for anyoen that can convince some eejit of a gard to try convict me on anything to do with organised crime.


    Why exactly do people think there are hoards of Gardai sitting in stations waiting to be unleashed and frame random innocent people for major organised crime charges?

    No need to frame anyone, just give them unfair punishments for the crimes they have commited, some of which arguably shouldn't be crimes in the first place.

    No, the gardai don't sit around wanting to lock people up.
    Unfortunatley there's **** loads of idiots and biddies out there telling the government they need to get tough on x or clamp down on y and populist parties willing to take the easy way out to please them.

    Without sparking debate by mentioning modern irish examples, i will point to certain arab countries today, and also to the fact that homosexual acts were illegal here in 1994.


  • #41
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    No need to frame anyone, just give them unfair punishments for the crimes they have been commited, some of which arguably shouldn't be crimes in the first place.

    No, the gardai don't sit around wanting to lock people up.
    Unfortunatley there's **** loads of idiots and biddies out there telling the government they need to get tough on x or clamp down on y and populist parties willing to take the easy way out to please them.
    .

    Old biddies can get as many organised crime bosses locked up as they like, more power to them imo.

    But if you want to think some oul one giving out about you driving too fast on the road is going to lead to you being locked up in some sort of secret toture camp then thats your own issue. Just dont forget your tinfoil hat anyitme you go out in case THEY read your mind.

    I seem to remember a while ago RTDH in one of his many threads proclaimed that we'd all be fined and locked up for swearing in public after ammendments to other laws. Anyone here have their charge sheets or torture evidence from the robocops that arrested everyone?

    vinylmesh wrote: »

    Without sparking debate by mentioning modern irish examples, i will point to certain arab countries today, and also to the fact that homosexual acts were illegal here in 1994.

    Lots of things are and were illegal through never being taken off the books.. How many gay men were arrested in the 10 years say, up to 1994 for being gay or commiting homosexual acts?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Stekelly wrote: »
    I seem to remember a while ago RTDH in one of his many threads proclaimed that we'd all be fined and locked up for swearing in public after ammendments to other laws.
    That was to do with a zero tolerance swearing policy enforced by a UK city council.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055438258&highlight=swearing


  • #43
    Sulmac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    Will blasphemy be covered? :pac:


  • #44
    Relevant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭Relevant


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    Unfortunatley there's **** loads of idiots and biddies out there telling the government they need to get tough on x or clamp down on y and populist parties willing to take the easy way out to please them.
    This law is being brought in to combat the serious criminal element that intimidates witnesses and survives on the basis that nobody is willing to give evidence out of fear.

    I was walking through Summerhill last Sunday and saw a car smashed to pieces with "rats out" written on it. This type of intimidation means the criminals can operate freely in the knowledge that nobody will "rat" on them for fear of retribution. The Gardai know who these people are and know they have committed shootings and intimidation but are unable to secure a conviction due to the lack of people willing to give evidences.

    This bill takes away the one thing that was protecting these scumbags and now finally they will be held accountable for their actions.


  • #45
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Stekelly wrote: »
    Old biddies can get as many organised crime bosses locked up as they like, more power to them imo.

    And new laws only ever affect crime bosses right..........oh, and terrorists, don't forget those damn terrorists :pac:.
    But if you want to think some oul one giving out about you driving too fast on the road is going to lead to you being locked up in some sort of secret toture camp then thats your own issue. Just dont forget your tinfoil hat anyitme you go out in case THEY read your mind.

    I seem to remember a while ago RTDH in one of his many threads proclaimed that we'd all be fined and locked up for swearing in public after ammendments to other laws. Anyone here have their charge sheets or torture evidence from the robocops that arrested everyone?

    Lots of things are and were illegal through never being taken off the books.. How many gay men were arrested in the 10 years say, up to 1994 for being gay or commiting homosexual acts?

    I never said anything about torture camps and i'm not neccesarily talking about getting locked up either. The impression i get is that unless you're an obvious career criminal they try an avoid locking you up. Still, getting a criminal conviction is pretty **** tbh, and there's loads more ways they can punish you besides locking you up (fines ect.).

    For example, if a pub was to regularly stay open past the ridiculously early time of 2.30 am they'd be shut down, regardless of anything else. The fact that the government try and control what time people stay out till is imo, an abuse of their powers.


  • #46
    magick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,479 ✭✭✭magick


    i completely support, if anything the bill doesnt go far enough


  • #47
    Relevant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭Relevant


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    And new laws only ever affect crime bosses right..........oh, and terrorists, don't forget those damn terrorists :pac:.



    This is the criminal justice bill relating to the offences against the state act so in this instance the law is aimed at crime bosses. What is your point?


  • #48
    Raze_them_all
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,477 ✭✭✭✭Raze_them_all


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Uve nothing to worry about if ur a model citizen.

    About time they started cracking down hard on the scum.
    Unless a copper doesn like you for a personal reason


  • #49
    Relevant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭Relevant


    Raze_them_all wrote: »
    Unless a copper doesn like you for a personal reason
    He would still have to prove it to a Special Criminal Court Judge


  • #50
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Relevant wrote: »
    This is the criminal justice bill relating to the offences against the state act so in this instance the law is aimed at crime bosses. What is your point?

    My point is that often laws are aimed against the "big baddies" who everyone hates.
    But just because it is aimed at say, crime bosses doesn't mean it'll only affect crime bosses.

    People use all sorts of excuses to try and sneak in laws. For example i remember a group of MEPs tried to ban outdoor heaters along with the claim it was to fight global warming, when it was in fact a clear victimisation of smokers (lifelong non-smoker here) as there are hundreds of other devices that also use up loads of energy. Surely if people pay for electricity they should be allowed use it however they want. Banning one object at random does not seem like a good (or fair) way to fight global warming tbh.

    Besides, I was commenting more on the general attitude of "if you're an upstanding citizen then it won't affect you" rather than the specifics of this ammendment (which i have yet not stated my opinion on, as i'd need to do more reading into it).

    The exact line i used was ;
    any sensible person would be cautious every time the government try to increase that power
    .



    A lot of the time controversial laws are scrapped, or else just never enacted to their full draconian potential. But if there wasn't some sort of backlash against them, who knows what certain politicians would bring in.


  • #51
    In All Fairness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 515 ✭✭✭In All Fairness


    Relevant wrote: »
    This is the criminal justice bill relating to the offences against the state act so in this instance the law is aimed at crime bosses. What is your point?

    I think the point is that they might miss and hit somebody else.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Stargal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,626 ✭✭✭Stargal


    I've always found the Irish Council for Civil Liberties to be really good - they fight a fight that few others will bother even attempting - but reading up on this Bill, it seems like it really has the potential to do some good. Gangland crime is a new kind of criminal activity and it needs new legislation to deal with it.

    The Bill specifies that people who are charged under it have to have involved with *criminal* activities of the gang. Let's face it, it's not normal, law-abiding people who are going to get charged under this. The guards know exactly who these guys are but haven't been able to get them under existing legislation. Is it breaching the civil liberties of the criminals? Perhaps, but I'd argue that they forfeited some of those liberties the moment they broke the law.

    So if it means that there's less people dealing drugs, killing each other, intimidating witnesses and all the other shít that these gangs have been up to over the past few years, well, bring it on.


  • #53
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Stargal wrote: »
    I've always found the Irish Council for Civil Liberties to be really good - they fight a fight that few others will bother even attempting - but reading up on this Bill, it seems like it really has the potential to do some good. Gangland crime is a new kind of criminal activity and it needs new legislation to deal with it.

    The Bill specifies that people who are charged under it have to have involved with *criminal* activities of the gang. Let's face it, it's not normal, law-abiding people who are going to get charged under this. The guards know exactly who these guys are but haven't been able to get them under existing legislation. Is it breaching the civil liberties of the criminals? Perhaps, but I'd argue that they forfeited some of those liberties the moment they broke the law.

    So if it means that there's less people dealing drugs, killing each other, intimidating witnesses and all the other shít that these gangs have been up to over the past few years, well, bring it on.

    There has to be at least 3 people involved so at least 3 people can be called upon as defense if needed. They will also have a solicitor or barrister defending them.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #54
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    Wertz wrote: »
    What if they thoiught they'd get away with it? The story of that female garda from Bray the other week shows that members of the force are not above telling porkies to get their own way, consequences or not. The McBrearty case also bears testament to that.

    Of course you will have a few who would try it on.That female garda was found out though.

    The McBearty case was a disgrace,it only went so far in terms of prosecution as he was no law abiding citizen himself,far from it(thats no excuse though).I cant see something like that happening again tbh,what with that case being so high profile and the gardai involved in that where also found out,albeit very late on,but still found out.

    I haven't read through the bill but I am assuming that the court cases will be held in the SCC.That is a big court,if I was a member of AGS I would be very reluctent to take some one there on a grudge,as no matter how incompetent people may think our courts are,they would not stand for something like that,let alone the DPP standing for it.

    Of course you will always have a few who would try it on but not all Gardai are the grudge bearing type.

    I think people are just displaying a paranoia,mostly because when our goverment introduces something that makes sense they balls it up.


  • #55
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Stargal wrote: »
    I've always found the Irish Council for Civil Liberties to be really good - they fight a fight that few others will bother even attempting - but reading up on this Bill, it seems like it really has the potential to do some good. Gangland crime is a new kind of criminal activity and it needs new legislation to deal with it.

    Gangland crime is not new. Granted it may be worse now, but criminal gangs have operated and fought with each other as long as there has been a black market, which goes back way, way before our time.
    The Bill specifies that people who are charged under it have to have involved with *criminal* activities of the gang. Let's face it, it's not normal, law-abiding people who are going to get charged under this.
    A Normal person is not law abiding :p.
    The guards know exactly who these guys are but haven't been able to get them under existing legislation. Is it breaching the civil liberties of the criminals? Perhaps, but I'd argue that they forfeited some of those liberties the moment they broke the law.

    Are you assuming they're guilty before they've been convicted?
    So if it means that there's less people dealing drugs, killing each other, intimidating witnesses and all the other shít that these gangs have been up to over the past few years, well, bring it on.

    See that's the kind of attitute that scares me. People thinking "yeah, this does kinda give the authorities more power than i'd like, but it's needed to fight x".

    I can't see this approach working tbh, you're trying to beat the laws of economics. If you do manage to get a few crime bosses you'll create a power vacuum and then it'll really kick off :eek:.

    Instead of slowly eroding civil liberties and taking more and more extreme measures, how about taking a step back and asking, "why do these gangs have such power in the first place?". I think you know what i'm getting at ;).


  • #56
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,310 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    smoking a spiff is enough to see you go down : )
    That's Fibbers, Bruxelles, and Eamonn Dorans ****ed, then :D :P


  • #57
    waitinforatrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭waitinforatrain


    I'd like to draw your attention to this. Definition of criminal gang changed from:
    Criminal Justice Act 2006 wrote:
    has as its main purpose or main activity the commission or facilitation of one or more serious offences in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit;

    to this:
    Amendment wrote:
    “‘criminal organisation’ means a structured group, however organised, that has as its main purpose or activity the commission or facilitation of a serious offence;”,

    Suddenly any "serious offence" (i.e. punishable by 4+ years in prison) is considered a criminal organisation. What is the implications of changing this and what is the reason it is being changed?


  • #58
    Executive Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,373 ✭✭✭Executive Steve


    waitinforatrain wrote: »
    Definition of criminal gang changed:

    Suddenly any "serious offence" (i.e. punishable by 4+ years in prison) is considered a criminal organisation. What is the implications of changing this and what is the reason it is being changed?



    In other words - any three people doing anything together that's punishable by 4+ years makes them eligible for warrant-less detention on the word of a single Garda...

    Given the Police force is about to have it's numbers slashed dramatically in the face of the forthcoming cuts I'd imagine there's an awful lot of porky pigs going to be clogging up the secret courts with arrests of this nature so as not to lose their jobs...

    If i lived in a house with someone who casually sold a bit of smoke every once in a while, or if I lived with someone with an interest in "gardening" right now I would be hitting ctrl+t and heading STRAIGHT for daft.ie....


  • #59
    Relevant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭Relevant


    I think weed is making some of you awfully paranoid.


  • #60
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Relevant wrote: »
    I think weed is making some of you awfully paranoid.

    yes, because only people who smoke weed are the ones who find the concept of warrentless detentions to be worrisome. No clean living, upstanding citizen could ever be concerned with the erosion of civil liberties for the illusion of security.
    No siree.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Vegeta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,391 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    Relevant wrote: »
    This law is being brought in to combat the serious criminal element that intimidates witnesses and survives on the basis that nobody is willing to give evidence out of fear.

    I was walking through Summerhill last Sunday and saw a car smashed to pieces with "rats out" written on it. This type of intimidation means the criminals can operate freely in the knowledge that nobody will "rat" on them for fear of retribution. The Gardai know who these people are and know they have committed shootings and intimidation but are unable to secure a conviction due to the lack of people willing to give evidences.

    This bill takes away the one thing that was protecting these scumbags and now finally they will be held accountable for their actions.

    Yay they'll be accountable and get a 4 year sentence, 3 years suspended and time off for good behaviour and they'll be back out to get you 24 weeks because the jail was full.

    A local drug dealer was caught in possession of an unlicensed handgun and burned down a few boats and didn't even see jail for a day.

    What's the point in this legislation if the sentences will be bullsh1t anyway?

    I know if I was a member of the Gardai that's what would annoy me most. You go to all the trouble of bringing a decent case to court and the guy gets a suspended sentence. Would boil my blood!


Advertisement
Advertisement