Burton: Garda checkpoints on estates to weed out welfare cheats

ezra_pound · 19-10-2013 01:03AM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

so you are speculating...and you were speculating that a guard would have the power of arrest if you refused to give up your pps number?

No the garda could do that now under common law.

Cody Pomeray · 19-10-2013 01:04AM

ezra_pound wrote: »

Specific statutory powers and procedure for garda questioning re welfare fraud.

Statutory powers already exist.

There's no reason to believe this is being planned,nor is it necessary.

Technoprisoner · 19-10-2013 01:04AM

ezra_pound wrote: »

The seanad will pass o it and the dail will pass it and it will be law. Just sit back and enjoy the wait.

all complete speculation yet again. every one of your arguments has had no grounds.

dxhound2005 · 19-10-2013 01:05AM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

what law? it has not been introduced so you can not quote a non existent law. i have been around long enough to see the introduction of random breath testing. and as i said earlier there is law in place to allow this. but currently there is no law that allows the garda or anyone else to randomly stop you and ask you to give up private information such as your pps number or if you are employed. and anything i have read about this has not mentioned new laws to be introduced that would give them the power to do this...so everything you have said is so far make believe.... they may well introduce powers to do this but currently there is no law there to provide such powers. This is exactly why i voted to keep the seanad. so any powers the government try introduce can be debated and discussed before the law is sent back to the dail for any amendments. If they do try and introduce such laws i would imagine there would be a constitutional challenge in the courts

The provision in the SW Act of 2005 which I quoted earlier actually originated in the SW Act of 1999. At least I can't find any earlier mention of it and there are Dail records of debates and questions on the subject only from 1998 that I can find. You say that no law exists to randomly stop people and ask them for PPS number etc. But take away the word randomly and substitute the concept of reasonable suspicion and there is such a law.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/en/act/pub/0003/print.html

16) A social welfare inspector may, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with this Act if accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána in uniform—

(a) stop any vehicle which he or she reasonably suspects is used in the course of employment or self-employment, and

(b) on production of his or her certificate of appointment, if so requested, question and make enquiries of any person in the vehicle or require such person to furnish him or her with any record relating to his or her employment or self-employment which the person has possession of in the vehicle, and examine it.”.

Technoprisoner · 19-10-2013 01:06AM

ezra_pound wrote: »

No the garda could do that now under common law.

no he can not lol... a guard has to have reasonable grounds and it is not illegal to refuse to answer a guards questions.

Technoprisoner · 19-10-2013 01:09AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The provision in the SW Act of 2005 which I quoted earlier actually originated in the SW Act of 1999. At least I can't find any earlier mention of it and there are Dail records of debates and questions on the subject only from 1998 that I can find. You say that no law exists to randomly stop people and ask them for PPS number etc. But take away the word randomly and substitute the concept of reasonable suspicion and there is such a law.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/en/act/pub/0003/print.html

16) A social welfare inspector may, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with this Act if accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána in uniform—

(a) stop any vehicle which he or she reasonably suspects is used in the course of employment or self-employment, and

(b) on production of his or her certificate of appointment, if so requested, question and make enquiries of any person in the vehicle or require such person to furnish him or her with any record relating to his or her employment or self-employment which the person has possession of in the vehicle, and examine it.”.

and see my earlier post about reasonable suspicion where i quoted form murdochs dictionary of irish law

ezra_pound · 19-10-2013 01:10AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Statutory powers already exist.

There's no reason to believe this is being planned,nor is it necessary.

The GS will be given greater statutory powers to do the same unaccompanied by sw inspectors. That's what my money's on!

Fred Swanson · 19-10-2013 01:11AM

This post has been deleted.

Phoebas · 19-10-2013 01:11AM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

it has nothing to do with nailing fraudsters....but has everything to do with invasion of privacy.

This is bizarre - take it to the CT forum.

Cody Pomeray · 19-10-2013 01:13AM

ezra_pound wrote: »

The GS will be given greater statutory powers to do the same unaccompanied by sw inspectors. That's what my money's on!

They don't need social welfare inspectors.

dxhound's link is incorrect. That is not the relevant piece of legislation.

The relevant piece of legislation is s 109 of the road traffic act 1961 and s. 261 of the social welfare consolidation act 2005

ezra_pound · 19-10-2013 01:16AM

Phoebas wrote: »

This is bizarre - take it to the CT forum.

Or you could just go in your time machine back to 1990 and Google fraudster porn, if that's what you're into.

ezra_pound · 19-10-2013 01:17AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

They don't need social welfare inspectors.

dxhound's link is incorrect. That is not the relevant piece of legislation.

The relevant piece of legislation is s 109 of the road traffic act 1961 and s. 261 of the social welfare consolidation act 2005

S.261 mentions inspectors right?

robertxxx · 19-10-2013 01:19AM

I really hope they set up check points in Dublin 15, clonsilla, ongar area.

Jesus the country would be back in the red if they done that!!!!!!!

dxhound2005 · 19-10-2013 01:23AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

They don't need social welfare inspectors.

dxhound's link is incorrect. That is not the relevant piece of legislation.

The relevant piece of legislation is s 109 of the road traffic act 1961 and s. 261 of the social welfare consolidation act 2005

And SW Inspectors don't even need Gardai. They can do their checkpoints accompanied by Customs.

16.—Section 250 (as amended by sections 29 and 37 of the Social
Welfare Law Reform and Pensions Act 2006) of the Principal Act is
amended by substituting the following subsections for subsection
(16):
“(16) For the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act,
a social welfare inspector may—
(a) if accompanied by—
(i) a member of the Garda Síochána in uniform, or
(ii) an officer of Customs and Excise in uniform,
and
(b) on production of his or her certificate of
appointment,
stop any vehicle and, for such purpose, may—
(i) question and make enquiries of any person in the
vehicle or in the vicinity of the vehicle, and
(ii) require such person, where the social welfare inspector
reasonably suspects that the vehicle is being used
in the course of employment or self-employment, to
give to the social welfare inspector any record relating
to the employment or self-employment of such
person which such person has possession of in the
vehicle.

constance tench · 19-10-2013 01:27AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're right to be mystified by the common law rule, because I certainly am.

Nevertheless, it was "unearthed" by the Supreme Court in DPP v. Patrick Fagan., which you might be able to find online for free. The Supreme Court said there is a common law right for a Garda to stop a car without suspicion.

However, there is also section 109(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

As much as i disagree with targeting people like this, it's hard to see how it could not be legal in light of the above. Wrong? Maybe. Legal? Pretty definitely.

DPP v. Patrick Fagan
http://garda.blackhallpublishing.com/index.php/2013-05-31-05-54-16/subject-index/213-road%20traffic%20acts,%201961%E2%80%932006/1443-Road%20Traffic%20Act,%201961.html/#ftnref3693
'(1) The Gardaí are under a common law duty to detect and prevent crime.'

(4) The power of the Gardaí to stop a vehicle had to be exercised in a bona fide manner. If a Garda exercised it in a capricious, arbitrary or improper manner it would be wholly illegal. It was open to a member of the public who is stopped to ask the Garda concerned as to why he has been stopped and, if subsequently charged with any offence, to raise the question of the propriety of being stopped in that context.

[Sec 109]That's the whole 'reasonable man' quagmire,
even so, They can stop you...but that's about it...http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0109.html
one doesn't have to stop for a little chat unless there is just cause...that's my reading of it anyway...
Rule No. 2...don't forget rule No. 1:)

Phoebas · 19-10-2013 01:30AM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

no he can not lol... a guard has to have reasonable grounds and it is not illegal to refuse to answer a guards questions.

.... but it can be grounds for arrest.

Fred Swanson · 19-10-2013 01:33AM

This post has been deleted.

ezra_pound · 19-10-2013 01:34AM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Would never hold up in court, esp if the person was not guilty of whatever that was alleged.

Obviously not... If the person was not guilty.

Technoprisoner · 19-10-2013 01:35AM

Phoebas wrote: »

.... but it can be grounds for arrest.

No it is not.... Re read my earlier post were I quoted reasonable grounds from murdochs dictionary of Irish law

Phoebas · 19-10-2013 01:42AM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you may be missing the point slightly.
Arresting someone on suspicion of something isn't the same as being charged with an offence, which would lead to court.

Cody Pomeray · 19-10-2013 01:43AM

constance tench wrote: »

DPP v. Patrick Fagan
http://garda.blackhallpublishing.com/index.php/2013-05-31-05-54-16/subject-index/213-road%20traffic%20acts,%201961%E2%80%932006/1443-Road%20Traffic%20Act,%201961.html/#ftnref3693
'(1) The Gardaí are under a common law duty to detect and prevent crime.'

[Sec 109]That's the whole 'reasonable man' quagmire,
even so, They can stop you...but that's about it...http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0109.html
one doesn't have to stop for a little chat unless there is just cause...that's my reading of it anyway...
Rule No. 2...don't forget rule No. 1:)

1. There is no 'reasonable man' 'quagmire' in requiring that a Garda detect crime without mala fides
2. Fagan makes it clear that the right of a Garda to stop cars without a specific suspicion is for the purpose of detecting crime. This is affirmed in DPP v. Farrell 2009
3. It is illogical to the point of being foolish to suggest that Gardaí have merely a right to stop a car but not to speak to the owner and ask questions of the owner, so long as those questions are relevant to the detection of crime.
4. While a driver is under no compulsion to answer those questions, it is clear that refusal to answer questions at the roadside may contribute to a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being, committed.

Phoebas · 19-10-2013 01:47AM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

No it is not.... Re read my earlier post were I quoted reasonable grounds from murdochs dictionary of Irish law

I think you're falling into the fatal trap of believing that your 'reasonable' is the same as someone else's 'reasonable'.

darkpagandeath · 19-10-2013 03:39AM

Phoebas wrote: »

I think you're falling into the fatal trap of believing that your 'reasonable' is the same as someone else's 'reasonable'.

And so are you.. you have several parties at the weekend .. on a regular basis .. can the gards then come and search your place for drugs? as well all know parties and drugs are related ?

expectationlost · 19-10-2013 03:43AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

1. There is no 'reasonable man' 'quagmire' in requiring that a Garda detect crime without mala fides
2. Fagan makes it clear that the right of a Garda to stop cars without a specific suspicion is for the purpose of detecting crime. This is affirmed in DPP v. Farrell 2009
3. It is illogical to the point of being foolish to suggest that Gardaí have merely a right to stop a car but not to speak to the owner and ask questions of the owner, so long as those questions are relevant to the detection of crime.
4. While a driver is under no compulsion to answer those questions, it is clear that refusal to answer questions at the roadside may contribute to a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being, committed.

so the police are magicing a reason to harrass you out of nothing

darkpagandeath · 19-10-2013 03:52AM

Originally Posted by Cody Pomeray View Post
1. There is no 'reasonable man' 'quagmire' in requiring that a Garda detect crime without mala fides
2. Fagan makes it clear that the right of a Garda to stop cars without a specific suspicion is for the purpose of detecting crime. This is affirmed in DPP v. Farrell 2009
3. It is illogical to the point of being foolish to suggest that Gardaí have merely a right to stop a car but not to speak to the owner and ask questions of the owner, so long as those questions are relevant to the detection of crime.
4. While a driver is under no compulsion to answer those questions, it is clear that refusal to answer questions at the roadside may contribute to a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is being, committed.

Have you payed your TV licence or property charge or any other thing not related to driving a car

does it stop there no ...

Technoprisoner · 19-10-2013 08:09AM

Phoebas wrote: »

I think you're falling into the fatal trap of believing that your 'reasonable' is the same as someone else's 'reasonable'.

A judge has already defined what " reasonable " is... So there is no confusion there

Phoebas · 19-10-2013 09:51AM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

A judge has already defined what " reasonable " is... So there is no confusion there

There clearly is confusion. You're confusing your own wishful thinking with actual fact.

dxhound2005 · 19-10-2013 09:52AM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What does "explain away" mean?

It is not a proposal, it is in operation already and has been since 1999. And has achieved real results. As in reducing and deterring fraud. You should be aware of this if unlike other posters you know about SW investigations.

Technoprisoner · 19-10-2013 11:05AM

Phoebas wrote: »

There clearly is confusion. You're confusing your own wishful thinking with actual fact.

i have took a quote for murdochs dictionary of irish law ...were it clearly defines the words to "reasonably suspect". i havent plucked my wishful thinking from the air. a Judge has already defined what it means for us so we clearly know.

Phoebas · 19-10-2013 12:58PM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

i have took a quote for murdochs dictionary of irish law ...were it clearly defines the words to "reasonably suspect". i havent plucked my wishful thinking from the air. a Judge has already defined what it means for us so we clearly know.

Nope. That's just your own incorrect interpretation.

Burton: Garda checkpoints on estates to weed out welfare cheats

Comments