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?
ezra_pound wrote: » Specific statutory powers and procedure for garda questioning re welfare fraud.
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.
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
ezra_pound wrote: » No the garda could do that now under common law.
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.”.
Cody Pomeray wrote: » Statutory powers already exist. There's no reason to believe this is being planned,nor is it necessary.
Technoprisoner wrote: » it has nothing to do with nailing fraudsters....but has everything to do with invasion of privacy.
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!
Phoebas wrote: » This is bizarre - take it to the CT forum.
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
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.
(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.
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.
Fred Swanson wrote: » Would never hold up in court, esp if the person was not guilty of whatever that was alleged.
Phoebas wrote: » .... but it can be grounds for arrest.
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
constance tench wrote: » DPP v. Patrick Faganhttp://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:)
Technoprisoner wrote: » No it is not.... Re read my earlier post were I quoted reasonable grounds from murdochs dictionary of Irish law
Phoebas wrote: » I think you're falling into the fatal trap of believing that your 'reasonable' is the same as someone else's 'reasonable'.
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.
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.
Technoprisoner wrote: » A judge has already defined what " reasonable " is... So there is no confusion there
Phoebas wrote: » There clearly is confusion. You're confusing your own wishful thinking with actual fact.
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.
