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

Gardai acquitted....

1…111213141517»

Comments

  • #482
    Bosco boy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭Bosco boy


    end a eknny wrote: »
    0O7 wrote: »
    you should organise a meeting with end a ekeny and chat about why ye hate the guards...
    what a load of sh1te. i dont hate the gardai i am just dismayed at how at the levels of stupidity, arrogance and imcompetence that i have encountered from them.

    I'd say the feeling is mutual


  • #483
    SLOOPY
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55 ✭✭SLOOPY


    JEINKINS12 wrote: »
    Is that the same committee whose representatives insisted on seeing the private contents of lockers belonging to Gardai ? And when pointed out to them that a search warrant would be required they insisted and the lockers were forced open? That committee?

    If they had nothing to hide,they had nothing to worry about.

    (Have seen that one pop up in threads re: AGS stopping and searching people.)

    If they were put out by having lockers searched,then so be it.
    Seems as though they were given the same option the general public gets from them when stopped on the street.


  • #484
    Fred Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 189 ✭✭Fred Cohen


    Bosco boy wrote: »
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by end a eknny viewpost.gif
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 0O7 viewpost.gif
    you should organise a meeting with end a ekeny and chat about why ye hate the guards...

    what a load of sh1te. i dont hate the gardai i am just dismayed at how at the levels of stupidity, arrogance and imcompetence that i have encountered from them.

    I'd say the feeling is mutual l

    If you look upwards could you not say the same thing?


  • #485
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    JEINKINS12 wrote: »
    Is that the same committee whose representatives insisted on seeing the private contents of lockers belonging to Gardai ? And when pointed out to them that a search warrant would be required they insisted and the lockers were forced open? That committee?

    I don't know. But, it's a strawman you've made there.

    Also, the State has given the Committee the powers to search stations without warrant. I can't find any provision of law that would require them to need such a warrant. In fact Article 8 of the Convention duly ratified explicitly provides unlimited access. Was it argued that the lockers were in someway a dwelling within the meaning of the Constitution?

    I would expect if the police arrived somewhere and were denied access to a place that they had lawful authority to search, and they felt it necessary they would force entry.

    Interestingly the Committee, unlike the GSOC doesn't need to give notice that a search of a station is going to take place.


  • #486
    JEINKINS12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭JEINKINS12


    Fred Cohen wrote: »
    Is that the same type of search warrant which was used to gain access to the flat?

    If you bothered to read previous posts you would see a warrant is not required to enter a home in order to arrest a person (who lives there) for an arrestable offence (5year penalty or more) as per Section 6(2) Criminal Law Act 1997


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    I don't know. But, it's a strawman you've made there.

    Also, the State has given the Committee the powers to search stations without warrant. I can't find any provision of law that would require them to need such a warrant. In fact Article 8 of the Convention duly ratified explicitly provides unlimited access. Was it argued that the lockers were in someway a dwelling within the meaning of the Constitution?

    I would expect if the police arrived somewhere and were denied access to a place that they had lawful authority to search, and they felt it necessary they would force entry.

    Interestingly the Committee, unlike the GSOC doesn't need to give notice that a search of a station is going to take place.

    Lockers are often used to store evidence. A search of a locker would breach the chain of custody and compromise the evidence.


  • #488
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,107 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    SLOOPY wrote: »
    If they had nothing to hide,they had nothing to worry about


    That's a load of bollox.


  • #489
    JEINKINS12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭JEINKINS12


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    I don't know. But, it's a strawman you've made there.

    Also, the State has given the Committee the powers to search stations without warrant. I can't find any provision of law that would require them to need such a warrant. In fact Article 8 of the Convention duly ratified explicitly provides unlimited access. Was it argued that the lockers were in someway a dwelling within the meaning of the Constitution?

    I would expect if the police arrived somewhere and were denied access to a place that they had lawful authority to search, and they felt it necessary they would force entry.

    Interestingly the Committee, unlike the GSOC doesn't need to give notice that a search of a station is going to take place.


    It is not a straw man argument, you seek to rely on the report of a Committee whose integrity I have attacked. IF they have no integrity then part of the reasoning behind your argument fails and it then weakens said argument.

    Pray tell, where, when and what piece of law allows them to SEARCH (not access to). I can have access to your house for dinner does that give me the right to rifle through all you personal belongings, I think not.

    Search warrants do not only apply to dwellings, can a car be searched without a warrant or express statute provision. NO.

    Article 8 of what convention ? If you are going to quote legislation please use full titles.

    You might expect the police to force entry if denied, because that appears to be your attitude towards them. But the Gardaí cannot force entry, even with a warrant, if there is no express provision in the warrant or relevant statute which allows a forced entry. Nearly all search warrants allow for forcible entry, but not all.

    Yes they do not have to give notice of a VISIT, not search. They visit stations and seek to talk to any person in custody. Once they carried out an unlawful search of private lockers but interestingly they have not repeated that little mistake since. I wonder why?


  • #490
    JEINKINS12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭JEINKINS12


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    I don't know. But, it's a strawman you've made there.

    Also, the State has given the Committee the powers to search stations without warrant. I can't find any provision of law that would require them to need such a warrant. In fact Article 8 of the Convention duly ratified explicitly provides unlimited access. Was it argued that the lockers were in someway a dwelling within the meaning of the Constitution?

    I would expect if the police arrived somewhere and were denied access to a place that they had lawful authority to search, and they felt it necessary they would force entry.

    Interestingly the Committee, unlike the GSOC doesn't need to give notice that a search of a station is going to take place.


    Article 8 of European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
    .......A Party shall provide the Committee with the following facilities to carry out its task:
    a access to its territory and the right to travel without restriction;
    b full information on the places where persons deprived of their liberty are being held;
    c unlimited access to any place where persons are deprived of their liberty, including the right to move inside such places without restriction;
    d other information available to the Party which is necessary for the Committee to carry out its task. In
    seeking such information, the Committee shall have regard to applicable rules of national law and
    professional ethics.

    Access to and right to move inside, no mention of SEARCH.


  • #491
    bown 1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭bown 1


    Riots Anyone?


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    JEINKINS12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭JEINKINS12


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    I......I would like to see a report from the European Council's Committee on the Prevention of Torture or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that doesn't say things like 'a person in on custody of the [Irish Police] runs a not inconsiderable risk of physical ill-treatment.'.


    Redacted portion of said report in relation to Garda detention

    Ill-treatment


    14. The majority of the persons met by the CPT’s delegation made no complaints about the manner in which they were treated while in the custody of the Gardai. Indeed, many persons with past experience of detention stated that the treatment by the Gardai had improved in recent years and that they had been treated correctly during their most recent period of custody. However, a number of persons did allege verbal and/or physical ill-treatment by Gardai. The alleged ill-treatment consisted mostly of kicks, punches and blows with batons to various parts of the body. The allegations concerned the time of arrest or during transport to a Garda station and, in one specific case, the period of custody in a station. Several of the persons interviewed had apparently submitted a complaint to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.


    15. The delegation gathered little medical evidence of ill-treatment. However, this should not be interpreted as undermining the credibility of the allegations made. Most of the cases of alleged ill-treatment communicated to the delegation pre-dated its visit by several weeks and any injuries which might have been caused by the ill-treatment alleged would almost certainly have healed in the meantime.

    One person interviewed (who did not wish to make a formal complaint) alleged that after being arrested by the police in front of members of his family, he was taken to a police station where he was ill-treated. Specifically, he stated that he was placed in a cell with his hands still handcuffed behind his back and, over the course of one and a half hours, was subjected to kicks, punches and baton blows by several Gardai. When examined by a prison doctor a couple of days later, the following was noted: “Bruised right wrist and swollen right hand. No movements. Bruise marks anterior upper arms bilaterally. Bruise marks anterior and posterior thighs. Tender right postero-lateral occipital area with no broken skin.”.


    16. The information gathered by the CPT’s delegation in the course of the 2010 visit indicates that progress continues to be made in reducing ill-treatment at the hands of police officers; nevertheless, the persistence of some allegations makes clear that the Irish authorities must remain vigilant.

    The CPT recommends that senior police officers remind their subordinates at regular intervals that the ill-treatment of detained persons is not acceptable and will be the subject of severe sanctions.


    So where did you get your 'a person in on custody of the [Irish Police] runs a not inconsiderable risk of physical ill-treatment' quote from??


  • #493
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    Lockers are often used to store evidence. A search of a locker would breach the chain of custody and compromise the evidence.

    Fair point. I assume this argument would apply similarly to other places where such evidence might be stored. This might need to be legislated for if it is in fact an issue.
    JEINKINS12 wrote: »
    It is not a straw man argument, you seek to rely on the report of a Committee whose integrity I have attacked. IF they have no integrity then part of the reasoning behind your argument fails and it then weakens said argument.

    It is a strawman argument inasmuch as even if it is established that a search of the locker was ultra vires its powers that does not invalidate its work, you'll have to do better than that to discredit their work.
    Search warrants do not only apply to dwellings, can a car be searched without a warrant or express statute provision. NO.

    I know that they don't the point was that dwellings are highly protected by the Constitution and the State could not purport to give unlimited access without a warrant.
    Article 8 of what convention ? If you are going to quote legislation please use full titles.
    Seems you've found it. But I did say "the Convention", which is standard practice when context has been established.
    You might expect the police to force entry if denied, because that appears to be your attitude towards them. But the Gardaí cannot force entry, even with a warrant, if there is no express provision in the warrant or relevant statute which allows a forced entry. Nearly all search warrants allow for forcible entry, but not all.

    I think it would be a matter for interpretation, as to if access is denied they can force entry. I can't recall but can the police force entry in some circumstances where the have lawful excuse to enter without a warrant?
    Yes they do not have to give notice of a VISIT, not search. They visit stations and seek to talk to any person in custody. Once they carried out an unlawful search of private lockers but interestingly they have not repeated that little mistake since. I wonder why?

    Well it is you who is interpreting the terms unlimited access as not including a search. My interpretation would be different.

    Would be interesting to see some ruling on this, instead of just speculating why? Are you a West Wing fan? "Post hoc ergo propter hoc"
    JEINKINS12 wrote: »
    Access to and right to move inside, no mention of SEARCH.

    Yes I have read the Convention and my reading of unlimited access would encompass a search-type situation.
    JEINKINS12 wrote: »
    So where did you get your 'a person in on custody of the [Irish Police] runs a not inconsiderable risk of physical ill-treatment' quote from??

    I have removed the quoted material from the report just for brevity. I have said a few times now that I think that the police in Ireland do a great job on the whole. It would be a dreadful situation indeed if the majority of persons were being abused.

    As for the quote I think it's para 14 of the 2002 report.


  • #494
    JEINKINS12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭JEINKINS12


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    Fair point. I assume this argument would apply similarly to other places where such evidence might be stored. This might need to be legislated for if it is in fact an issue.



    It is a strawman argument inasmuch as even if it is established that a search of the locker was ultra vires its powers that does not invalidate its work, you'll have to do better than that to discredit their work.



    I know that they don't the point was that dwellings are highly protected by the Constitution and the State could not purport to give unlimited access without a warrant.


    Seems you've found it. But I did say "the Convention", which is standard practice when context has been established.



    I think it would be a matter for interpretation, as to if access is denied they can force entry. I can't recall but can the police force entry in some circumstances where the have lawful excuse to enter without a warrant?



    Well it is you who is interpreting the terms unlimited access as not including a search. My interpretation would be different.

    Would be interesting to see some ruling on this, instead of just speculating why? Are you a West Wing fan? "Post hoc ergo propter hoc"



    Yes I have read the Convention and my reading of unlimited access would encompass a search-type situation.



    I have removed the quoted material from the report just for brevity. I have said a few times now that I think that the police in Ireland do a great job on the whole. It would be a dreadful situation indeed if the majority of persons were being abused.

    As for the quote I think it's para 14 of the 2002 report.


    OHHHHH the 2002 report, that would be the 9 year old report, ahhh i see you keep up to date with your reading. I wonder why you only quoted from the 2002 report and not the most recent 2010 report. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Agenda anyone.

    BTW the Latin does not impress...balatro.


  • #495
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    JEINKINS12 wrote: »
    OHHHHH the 2002 report, that would be the 9 year old report, ahhh i see you keep up to date with your reading. I wonder why you only quoted from the 2002 report and not the most recent 2010 report. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Agenda anyone.

    BTW the Latin does not impress...balatro.

    I try to keep up-to-date with my reading, I have read all those reports, it has been a while. I don't know why you are being so belligerent, you've called me names, said I have an agenda, and just generally been hostile.

    I am happy that the more recent reports are less critical of the police, a force that I have been very proud of and happy with on a huge amount of occasions. I just have issues when people with power abuse that power, not only the police force, but also in all other positions of power.

    So, when I tried to argue that when problems are found they should be sorted. The best way to do that is within the law, I didn't suggest that the jury's verdict should be ignored in law or that they shouldn't still be presumed innocent. I didn't even suggest what the result of a civil case or internal disciplinary case might be with a lower standard of proof. I just gave my opinion on the verdict which is what this thread was about.

    I felt I could contribute as I had attended the trial and heard the evidence. I admitted, I heard evidence the jury didn't hear as it was excluded, but said that I didn't feel it was that important. You made your views known and I disagreed with some and agreed with others.

    For the record I don't have an agenda, I have an interest, I have written papers on the topic of police oversight before and after the GSOC was established. I am training to be a lawyer and attended the court to learn, like I do regularly.

    Latin wasn't designed to impress you, simply came to mind from an episode of the West Wing, my way to try and lighten the conversation a little. It's a funny scene.


  • #496
    zega
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 211 ✭✭zega


    Apparently your man is a prick anyway.


  • #497
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    zega wrote: »
    Apparently your man is a prick anyway.

    Without a doubt. :)


  • #498
    Fred Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 189 ✭✭Fred Cohen


    JEINKINS12 wrote: »
    If you bothered to read previous posts you would see a warrant is not required to enter a home in order to arrest a person (who lives there) for an arrestable offence (5year penalty or more) as per Section 6(2) Criminal Law Act 1997

    Apologies, I have not read all the previous posts and have no legal training but as far as I know, The Mother was locked in the bathroom, the gouger got the ****e kicked out of him in the bedroom and there was no arrest made. Would that be right?

    By the way I am fully supportive of AGS and think actions by idiots like this only make their job harder and gives gist to the mill to those who would do them down.


Advertisement
Advertisement