Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Gardai not responding to request for info needed to commence a civil case, what next?

1246

Comments

  • #152
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,814 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    54and56 wrote: »
    Not sure how anyone can view that as anything other than harming me.

    Because the damage has been done, the law as it is has not made that damage any worse, so it’s not punishment! It makes it harder to swallow yeah, but that’s not really relevant!


  • #153
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    54and56 wrote: »
    The Youth Diversion Bureau Super hasn't responded to me yet but they will, I'll keep chipping away from all angles until they either reply to the request providing the contact details of the parents or denying my request and stating the basis on which I'm being denied that info.

    Yep, that's one of the options I'll pursue if I don't get a response form the Youth Diversion Bureau Super by the end of this month.

    If GSOC confirm my expectations of being treated respectfully in an effective and efficient manner are OTT and the Youth Diversion Bureau Super is behaving to the expected standard by just blanking my request for 3 months I'll fold my tent in terms of pursuing co-operation from AGS but there will still be a number of avenues and potential outcomes open to me which I've outlined previously.

    Instead of insisting the Gardai explain why they can't give you the details, why don't you look it up and do some proper research, or just ask your "guy" and save the 151 posts in this thread thus far. The Gardai are not a citizens information service, they are not responsible for advising you on the legalities or the law, they owe you no duty of care and are not required to reply to every inquiry they receive.

    What would you expect GSOC to do exactly, perhaps they will kindly ask the Guard to send you a reply, because otherwise GSOC have no power to compel the Guard to give you any sort of acknowledgement.

    The thread has reached the stage now where it is just constantly going around in circles like a merry go round.


  • #154
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    Captain_Crash wrote: »
    Because the damage has been done, the law as it is has not made that damage any worse, so it’s not punishment! It makes it harder to swallow yeah, but that’s not really relevant!

    It's systematically preventing me from even trying to seek compensation.

    That's harming me.


  • #155
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    GM228 wrote: »
    Instead of insisting the Gardai explain why they can't give you the details, why don't you look it up and do some proper research, or just ask your "guy" and save the 151 posts in this thread thus far.

    I'm asking for info they and they alone have which I need to seek compensation.
    GM228 wrote: »
    The Gardai are not a citizens information service, they are not responsible for advising you on the legalities or the law, they owe you no duty of care and are not required to reply to every inquiry they receive.

    I'm not asking the Gardai for advice, how can you not see that?

    They do however owe a duty of care to victims of crime or perhaps you think they don't?

    If they don't have a duty of care to victims of crime, who do they have a duty of care to? From my viewpoint it seems their primary duty of care is to the vandal. Perhaps that's how it is but it sure seems odd to me.

    I agree that they don't have to reply to every enquiry but as a victim of crime I believe I qualify for a timely and effective response. Perhaps you disagree?
    GM228 wrote: »
    What would you expect GSOC to do exactly, perhaps they will kindly ask the Guard to send you a reply, because otherwise GSOC have no power to compel the Guard to give you any sort of acknowledgement.

    That would suffice nicely.
    GM228 wrote: »
    The thread has reached the stage now where it is just constantly going around in circles like a merry go round.

    You're not compelled to participate, thank you for your contribution.

    Please feel free to step off the merry go round any time you want to.


  • #156
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    54and56 wrote: »
    They do however owe a duty of care to victims of crime or perhaps you think they don't?

    They don't, I know they don't, the courts have held they don't!

    They can only ever hold a duty of care under the ordinary principles of the law of negligence, in other words they owe no duty of care towards a victim of crime.

    It is known under common law as the "Hill Principle".


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,814 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    54and56 wrote: »
    It's systematically preventing me from even trying to seek compensation.

    That's harming me.

    Not being able to seek compensation isn’t harming you, it not inflicted any more damage to you and it hasn’t removed any rights! You don’t agree with that so there is no point in discussing any further. The law as it is neither favours or punishes you!

    You've backed the wrong horse here... it’s best to get off it before it costs you more money than the 2 grands worth of damage already done.


  • #158
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    Captain_Crash wrote: »
    Not being able to seek compensation isn’t harming you,

    Wrong.

    Try walking in my shoes and concluding it isn't harming me.


  • #159
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    GM228 wrote: »
    They can only ever hold a duty of care under the ordinary principles of the law of negligence, in other words they owe no duty of care towards a victim of crime.

    It is known under common law as the "Hill Principle".

    So who do they owe a duty of care to if anybody?

    Have you read the 96 page https://www.victimscharter.ie which AGS signed up to? I know it's not legally binding but unless you think its no more than a cynical PR exercise then AGS does aspire to assist victims of crime (like me) in an efficient and effective manner.

    It's interesting that the "Hill Principle" you reference is a UK precedent which is irrelevant to my situation as I have no intention of ever suing the Gardai.

    The "Hill Principle" summary is "The police will no longer enjoy blanket immunity from being sued for negligent acts committed in the course of operational duties." Why did you incorrectly reference that?

    Are you pretending to be more authoritative about Irish legal matters than you really are? When you say you are involved in the legal service what is it you do? I assumed you were legally expert but then someone working as a kitchen porter in the courts could legitimately claim to be working "in a legal environment" :-)

    You wanted to get off the Merry Go Round earlier but chose not to which is fine but now you are referencing completely irrelevant UK case law.

    Why is that?

    Are you mistaken (it's ok to admit you are mistaken) or are you trying and failing to be someone with more knowledge and experience than you actually have?


  • #160
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    OP, you have recieved the correct information. You are choosing to ignore it now because it doesnt fit your desires and instead insist on arguing and telling everyone they are wrong. One wonders why you posted to begin with.

    Looking through this thread, you have recieved good solid information from at least 3 people that know what they are talking about. Ignore it if you want


  • #161
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    54and56 wrote: »
    So who do they owe a duty of care to if anybody?

    Have you read the 96 page https://www.victimscharter.ie which AGS signed up to? I know it's not legally binding but unless you think its no more than a cynical PR exercise then AGS does aspire to assist victims of crime (like me) in an efficient and effective manner.

    It's interesting that the "Hill Principle" you reference is a UK precedent which is irrelevant to my situation as I have no intention of ever suing the Gardai.

    The "Hill Principle" summary is "The police will no longer enjoy blanket immunity from being sued for negligent acts committed in the course of operational duties." Why did you incorrectly reference that?

    Are you pretending to be more authoritative about Irish legal matters than you really are? When you say you are involved in the legal service what is it you do? I assumed you were legally expert but then someone working as a kitchen porter in the courts could legitimately claim to be working "in a legal environment" :-)

    You wanted to get off the Merry Go Round earlier but chose not to which is fine but now you are referencing completely irrelevant UK case law.

    Why is that?

    Are you mistaken (it's ok to admit you are mistaken) or are you trying and failing to be someone with more knowledge and experience than you actually have?

    The Guards did assist you. They identified the offender, they dealt with him by using the only avenue available to them. What more do you want them to do?


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    The Guards did assist you. They identified the offender, they dealt with him by using the only avenue available to them. What more do you want them to do?

    Not much.

    Provide me with the contact details of the vandals parents so I can (if I choose) issue a civil writ for compensation and if they are restricted by law from doing so to confirm same.


  • #163
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    54and56 wrote: »
    So who do they owe a duty of care to if anybody?

    Have you read the 96 page https://www.victimscharter.ie which AGS signed up to?  I know it's not legally binding but unless you think its no more than a cynical PR exercise then AGS does aspire to assist victims of crime (like me) in an efficient and effective manner.

    Yes I have, but, as you correctly note it is not law.

    They owe a duty of care only to someone with which they directly create a harm.


    54and56 wrote: »
    It's interesting that the "Hill Principle" you reference is a UK precedent which is irrelevant to my situation as I have no intention of ever suing the Gardai.

    The so called "Hill Principle" is applicable in nearly every common law jurisdiction in the world including here where the principles of such have specifically been adopted by the Irish courts.


    54and56 wrote: »
    The "Hill Principle" summary is "The police will no longer enjoy blanket immunity from being sued for negligent acts committed in the course of operational duties."  Why did you incorrectly reference that?

    Why did I incorrectly reference it? I didn't, you said the Gardai owe victims of crime a duty of care, they don't, that is a fact, something which is absolute under the principle. The UK Supreme Court by the way reaffirmed the Hill principles, it didn't limit them.


    54and56 wrote: »
    Are you pretending to be more authoritative about Irish legal matters than you really are?  When you say you are involved in the legal service what is it you do?  I assumed you were legally expert but then someone working as a kitchen porter in the courts could legitimately claim to be working "in a legal environment" :-)

    Where did I say I was "involved" in the legal service? I didn't mention my profession and it is none of your concern, but, if you must know the law relating to the Gardai, their duties and immunities is my specialty when it comes to the law. That aside, can I take your order and I'll pass it onto the senior kitchen porter?


    54and56 wrote: »
    You wanted to get off the Merry Go Round earlier but chose not to which is fine but now you are referencing completely irrelevant UK case law.

    Why is that?

    Merry go rounds can be fun - up until a certain point, I'll jump off when the time is right.


    54and56 wrote: »
    Are you mistaken (it's ok to admit you are mistaken) or are you trying and failing to be someone with more knowledge and experience than you actually have?

    Nope, I'm 100% correct. You need to equip yourself with better Google skills when you search the so called Hill Principle and it's application in this state, but if you want to be spoon fed some case law, here you go:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=109610600

    You see I do know what I am talking about, it's my area of expertise. Your "guy" should you choose to contact him would save you so many strokes of the keyboard and confirm everything you've been told previously in this thread.


  • #164
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    OP, you have recieved the correct information. You are choosing to ignore it now because it doesnt fit your desires and instead insist on arguing and telling everyone they are wrong. One wonders why you posted to begin with.

    Looking through this thread, you have received good solid information from at least 3 people that know what they are talking about. Ignore it if you want

    I'm absolutely not.

    I accept that the law may prevent AGS from sharing the vandals parents contact details. If, assuming the Youth Diversion Programme Super ever replies to my request, they confirm that I'll accept it and move on to identifying their contact details via other legal means.

    Separately, it's my view that a law which systematically prevents me from having the opportunity to seek recompense in the civil courts is discriminating and unjust.

    Maybe others disagree that's fine, we can agree to disagree on that point.


  • #165
    SetOverSet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 421 ✭✭SetOverSet


    54and56 wrote: »
    So who do they owe a duty of care to if anybody?

    ...

    It's interesting that the "Hill Principle" you reference is a UK precedent which is irrelevant to my situation as I have no intention of ever suing the Gardai.

    The Hill Principle summary is "The police will no longer enjoy blanket immunity from being sued for negligent acts committed in the course of operational duties." Why did you incorrectly reference that?

    ...

    Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire is a UK case, but there are plenty of reported High Court decisions in this jurisdictions applying that principle, and I think a more proper summary would be that no duty of care arises in respect of bona fide decisions carried out by the Guards in the course of their duty.


  • #166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    54and56 wrote: »
    Not much.

    Provide me with the contact details of the vandals parents so I can (if I choose) issue a civil writ for compensation and if they are restricted by law from doing so to confirm same.

    You have been told by the gardai that they cannot give you that information and have been told the legislation that covers the reason why.
    I don't know why the superintendent told you to contact the superintendent in JLO, maybe he thought he was being helpful. But the law is the law, no matter who tells you about it.


  • #167
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    GM228 wrote: »
    You need to equip yourself with better Google skills when you search the so called Hill Principle and it's application in this state

    The Hill Principle is a red herring ref my situation.

    My issue relates to not getting a timely response from the Youth Diversion Programme Super.

    The 108 page Victims Charter is full of language about how important it is to support victims etc and how AGS will endeavour to do so blah blah blah but as you say it's not legally binding.

    What is your opinion on the Garda Charter? Does AGS have to live up to any of the commitments it made in that document or is that also just a cynical PR exercise?

    In particular I'd like to get your thoughts on how well, three months after I contacted them and have yet to have a reply or acknowledgement of receipt, they are adhering to the following commitment made in their charter?

    EIVMUbq.jpg


  • #168
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    SetOverSet wrote: »
    Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire is a UK case, but there are plenty of reported High Court decisions in this jurisdictions applying that principle, and I think a more proper summary would be that no duty of care arises in respect of bona fide decisions carried out by the Guards in the course of their duty.

    You could even take the bona fide (there's only one case which specifically stated it and it is not stated in later case law) qualification out of the equation.

    A guard investigating a crime who fails to follow up an obvious lead may be guilty of negligence in the ordinary sense of the word, but, this does not give rise to any actionable liability on the part of a member of the public.


  • #169
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    bubblypop wrote: »
    You have been told by the gardai that they cannot give you that information and have been told the legislation that covers the reason why.
    I don't know why the superintendent told you to contact the superintendent in JLO, maybe he thought he was being helpful. But the law is the law, no matter who tells you about it.

    If the local Super had been that definitive I would have had not choice but to accept what he stated but he wasn't, he referred me to the JLO Super hence I am where I am.


  • #170
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    54and56 wrote: »
    The Hill Principle is a red herring ref my situation.

    It was brought up due to your claim they owed a victim of crime a duty of care.


    54and56 wrote: »
    My issue relates to not getting a timely response from the Youth Diversion Programme Super.

    The 108 page Victims Charter is full of language about how important it is to support victims etc and how AGS will endeavour to do so blah blah blah but as you say it's not legally binding.

    What is your opinion on the Garda Charter? Does AGS have to live up to any of the commitments it made in that document or is that also just a cynical PR exercise?

    In particular I'd like to get your thoughts on how well, three months after I contacted them and have yet to have a reply or acknowledgement of receipt, they are adhering to the following commitment made in their charter?

    EIVMUbq.jpg

    It's not law, it's a guide, they don't have to reply, simples. Forget the so called Hill Principle, the common law power of discretion applies, the charter can't compel them to act in any particular way even if it was law.


  • #171
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    54and56 wrote: »
    If the local Super had been that definitive I would have had not choice but to accept what he stated but he wasn't, he referred me to the JLO Super hence I am where I am.

    Why don't you just read the actual law instead of relying on a Guard to tell you what we have all been telling you :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    54and56 wrote: »
    Separately, it's my view that a law which systematically prevents me from having the opportunity to seek recompense in the civil courts is discriminating and unjust.

    Maybe others disagree that's fine, we can agree to disagree on that point.

    There are often compelling considerations rooted in the welfare of the whole community, which outweigh the dictates of individualized justice, this is one of those situations.

    It creates what the individual perceives as an unjust situation, but the courts disagree and base such decisions on the greater good of society as a whole.

    If I were in your situation I would feel the same no doubt, but, I would also understand why it is the way it is (yes I have the advantage of knowing the law) and would in fact actually agree with it.


  • #173
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    GM228 wrote: »
    It's not law, it's a guide, they don't have to reply, simples. Forget the so called Hill Principle, the common law power of discretion applies, the charter can't compel them to act in any particular way even if it was law.

    I guess the word "always" must mean something else to you than it does to me.

    "We will always treat you with dignity and respect when you contact us regardless of how, where or for what reason that contact takes place."


  • #174
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    GM228 wrote: »
    Why don't you just read the actual law instead of relying on a Guard to tell you what we have all been telling you :confused:

    Because I don't want to misinterpret the law and AGS hold the info I want so I'd rather get it from the horses mouth so to speak and whilst I genuinely appreciate the contributions here which have been very informative thus far (and I accept you are a subject matter expert on the law relating to the Gardai) I'm not going to take the (possibly correct) input of strangers on the interweb as a substitute for a definitive official response from AGS which I will eventually get one way or another.


  • #175
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    54and56 wrote: »
    Because I don't want to misinterpret the law and AGS hold the info I want so I'd rather get it from the horses mouth so to speak and whilst I genuinely appreciate the contributions here which have been very informative thus far (and I accept you are a subject matter expert on the law relating to the Gardai) I'm not going to take the (possibly correct) input of strangers on the interweb as a substitute for a definitive official response from AGS which I will eventually get one way or another.

    Gardaí don't hold the information you want, just look up the legislation on irishstatutebook.ie

    As for the victims charter, you were a visit of a crime, gardai found the person responsible and brought them to justice, surely they have fulfilled their duty to you, the victim


  • #176
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    54and56 wrote: »
    I guess the word "always" must mean something else to you than it does to me.

    "We will always treat you with dignity and respect when you contact us regardless of how, where or for what reason that contact takes place."

    The wording is irrelevant.

    It's not law.
    It's a guide.
    The charter can't compel them to act in any particular way.

    As such the use of "always" or any other terminology means jack diddly squat in the legal sense.

    It may be viewed as best practice and curtesy which is fair enough, but, it confers no responsibility on them to reply to you and confers no right for you to receive a reply.


  • #177
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    GM228 wrote: »
    The wording is irrelevant.

    It's not law.
    It's a guide.
    The charter can't compel them to act in any particular way.

    As such the use of "always" or any other terminology means jack diddly squat in the legal sense.

    It may be viewed as best practice and curtesy which is fair enough, but, it confers no responsibility on them to reply to you and confers no right for you to receive a reply.

    Class, nice to know AGS's own charter means the square root of FA to them. Excellent example to set to others.

    I wonder why they bothered going to the trouble of creating and publishing a charter so? Just to burn a bit more taxpayer money? Like the Victims Charter?

    Great little country.


  • #178
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Gardaí don't hold the information you want

    If the Gardai don't have the vandals home address how did they go to his house and bring him in for questioning etc?


  • #179
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    54and56 wrote: »
    If the Gardai don't have the vandals home address how did they go to his house and bring him in for questioning etc?

    Ah, I misunderstood, sorry. They have told you that they cannot give that information to you. It would be illegal for them to do so. You can look the legislation up yourself.


  • #180
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    A similar situation arose in Riga leading to a referral to the ECJ
    https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=187183&doclang=en


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    A similar situation arose in Riga leading to a referral to the ECJ
    https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=187183&doclang=en

    And to summarise, both the Advocate Generals opinion and subsequent judgement of the ECJ found there was no right to the information identifying those involved from the Police in order to initiate civil proceedings.

    54and56 will be disappointed, essentially the highest court in Europe has held that under data protection laws you are not entitled to the information that will identify someone involved in order to initiate a civil case against them, but, that does not however prevent for such where provision is made under national laws in certain circumstances such as has been done here since 1933 as already outlined under the The Road Traffic Act 1961.


  • #182
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    bubblypop wrote: »
    You have been told by the gardai that they cannot give you that information and have been told the legislation that covers the reason why.
    I don't know why the superintendent told you to contact the superintendent in JLO, maybe he thought he was being helpful. But the law is the law, no matter who tells you about it.

    they told them to contact the other superintendent to get them to go away. I can understand why.


  • #183
    HC Baker
    Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭HC Baker


    Should never have been dealt with under the youth diversion programme given the magnitude of the monetary loss. It should have went to court and the judge would have ordered payment. GSOC only course of action. You eed them to investigate the handling of the case and to make directions in order for you to obtain the details for a civil case and if they ruled in your favour you could take an action against an garda siochana.


  • #184
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,638 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    HC Baker wrote: »
    Should never have been dealt with under the youth diversion programme given the magnitude of the monetary loss. It should have went to court and the judge would have ordered payment. GSOC only course of action. You eed them to investigate the handling of the case and to make directions in order for you to obtain the details for a civil case and if they ruled in your favour you could take an action against an garda siochana.

    None of that is correct.


  • #185
    HC Baker
    Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭HC Baker


    Witcher wrote: »
    None of that is correct.
    If a balanced approach is not taken for the youth diversion programme, youths can just run wild with no consequenced. In this case the needs of the victim were not properly taken into account, given the 2k financial loss. If it went to court and the youth was found guilty, the judge would have ordered payment and upon payment being made, the matter would most likely have been struck out.


  • #186
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    HC Baker wrote: »
    Should never have been dealt with under the youth diversion programme given the magnitude of the monetary loss. It should have went to court and the judge would have ordered payment. GSOC only course of action. You eed them to investigate the handling of the case and to make directions in order for you to obtain the details for a civil case and if they ruled in your favour you could take an action against an garda siochana.
    HC Baker wrote: »
    If a balanced approach is not taken for the youth diversion programme, youths can just run wild with no consequenced. In this case the needs of the victim were not properly taken into account, given the 2k financial loss. If it went to court and the youth was found guilty, the judge would have ordered payment and upon payment being made, the matter would most likely have been struck out.

    You have absolutely nidea of what you are speaking about.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,638 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    HC Baker wrote: »
    If a balanced approach is not taken for the youth diversion programme, youths can just run wild with no consequenced. In this case the needs of the victim were not properly taken into account, given the 2k financial loss. If it went to court and the youth was found guilty, the judge would have ordered payment and upon payment being made, the matter would most likely have been struck out.

    Just stop lol


  • #188
    HC Baker
    Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭HC Baker


    Witcher wrote: »
    Just stop lol

    So what's your advice? And I'm interested to hear your take on the parameters for using the youth diversion programme?


  • #189
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    HC Baker wrote: »
    So what's your advice?

    Start with speaking in facts, most of what you said (in particular the parts I had highlighted in bold) can't happen.

    P.S there's 180+ posts of reading here for you first.


    HC Baker wrote: »
    It should have went to court

    It is preferable that a minor be considered for inclusion in the diversion programme as a priority over prosecution when they accept guilt (if they are not accepted to the programme they are entitled to be given a reason for such).
    HC Baker wrote: »
    the judge would have ordered payment.

    Against a minor, not going to happen.

    Against their parents – extremely unlikely given that there are qualifications on the ability to do so as previously discussed in the thread (there would also have to be a finding of guilt before a compensation order can be issued).
    HC Baker wrote: »
    GSOC only course of action. You need them to investigate the handling of the case and to make directions in order for you to obtain the details for a civil case and if they ruled in your favour you could take an action against an garda siochana.

    GSOC have no say in the matter, they can’t make any “directions” to obtain the details, it is against the law, they can’t take action against the Gardai and neither can the public, the Gardai don't owe the public any duty of care.
    HC Baker wrote: »
    If it went to court and the youth was found guilty, the judge would have ordered payment and upon payment being made, the matter would most likely have been struck out.

    If someone is found guilty the matter can’t then be struck out, likewise if struck out there can’t be any finding of guilt, without a finding of guilt there can be no compensation order.


  • #190
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    GM228 wrote: »
    And to summarise, both the Advocate Generals opinion and subsequent judgement of the ECJ found there was no right to the information identifying those involved from the Police in order to initiate civil proceedings.

    54and56 will be disappointed, essentially the highest court in Europe has held that under data protection laws you are not entitled to the information that will identify someone involved in order to initiate a civil case against them, but, that does not however prevent for such where provision is made under national laws in certain circumstances such as has been done here since 1933 as already outlined under the The Road Traffic Act 1961.

    Taken from the beginning of the ruling

    "The police gave Rīgas satiksme only the passenger’s name. They refused to provide the ID number and address.".

    So the police can provide the name.

    If I got the vandals name (or his parents name(s)) I'd be confident of finding the address myself via open source info.


  • #191
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    54and56 wrote: »
    Taken from the beginning of the ruling

    "The police gave Rīgas satiksme only the passenger’s name. They refused to provide the ID number and address.".

    So the police can provide the name.

    If I got the vandals name (or his parents name(s)) I'd be confident of finding the address myself via open source info.

    I think your missing the point, the fact the name only was given means nothing here, the law in Latvia allowed for such on a discretional basis, the law in Ireland strictly forbids such and makes it a criminal offence to do so.

    This case ended up in the Latvian Supreme Court where it was held there was no entitlement to the details, it was purely discretionary, the Police had the option to give certain details as provided for under Latvian law, but, the person making the request had no right to the information, following referral to the ECJ they too held that there was no obligation to give the details, but that does not preclude such disclosure on the basis of national law. In other words you are not entitled to the information you seek unless national law makes provision for such.

    The difference here is that Irish law specifically makes it a criminal offence to give the information, there is no disclosure provisions in Irish law (other than in the Road Traffic Act 1961 as already discussed).


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    Genuinely, I'd over to know what your hopes are for this case OP. Your biggest gripe appears to be that you are out 2 grand which is a lot of money but of you try to pursue this it is going to cost you multiples more than that and for what? Your second biggest gripe is that one Supt told you to contact another Supt just to get rid of you as they probably had a 100 other more important things to do that day and your case was essentially closed to them. I just don't get how you seem to be so obstinate in accepting all the good advice. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue this whatsoever and yet, you're hanging on to receiving a reply from the JLO Supt which you may eventually get and it will tell you everything that you've already been told. Dont hold your breath on receiving that reply though because again, this case is closed to them and they have thousands of other active cases with which to be dealing.


  • #193
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    Genuinely, I'd over to know what your hopes are for this case OP. Your biggest gripe appears to be that you are out 2 grand which is a lot of money but of you try to pursue this it is going to cost you multiples more than that and for what?

    Couple of things on that:-

    1. My hopes are to either recover the €2,000 the vandal cost me or to gather enough info to spark a judicial review into why the greater good of protecting the vandal and paying for resources to "support" him during his 12 month JLO supervision etc should be at my personal cost via a law which systematically prevents me from having any recourse to the civil courts to seek recompense. If the state thinks it's so important to protect the vandal from being financially accountable for his actions and want to spend money on JLO supervision etc then they should also pay for the damage caused to the victim via some form of fund preferably financed from proceeds of crime recovered by CAB or similar, just as happens when an uninsured driver causes damage they aren't financially liable for.

    2. I'm doing this myself and have the time so there is no cost and it's much better than watching Eastenders or whatever. If I do end up requiring a solicitor because I can't work the District Court process myself I'll make a judgment call then but I've a good bit of credit with one solicitor in particular who I've referred a lot of client work to over the years so I'm sure he'll keep his costs down or, spending on the time involved and outcome etc may not charge me at all as I've done professional favours for his clients a few times FOC.
    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    Your second biggest gripe is that one Supt told you to contact another Supt just to get rid of you as they probably had a 100 other more important things to do that day and your case was essentially closed to them.

    I don't disagree. It would have been far easier, quicker and more definitive for the Super to just write the first two sentences and not decide to add in the third.

    wkD3g4R.jpg
    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    Dont hold your breath on receiving that reply though because again, this case is closed to them and they have thousands of other active cases with which to be dealing.

    Apparently I can hold my breath waiting for a reply as they are committed to "always" treating members of the public with respect and personal accountability in an efficient and effective manner.

    Unless of course the Garda Charter is a load of old nonsense and just some sort of organisational joke they are playing on the country.


  • #194
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    54and56 wrote: »
    1. My hopes are to either recover the €2,000 the vandal cost me or to gather enough info to spark a judicial review into why the greater good of protecting the vandal and paying for resources to "support" him during his 12 month JLO supervision etc should be at my personal cost via a law which systematically prevents me from having any recourse to the civil courts to seek recompense. If the state thinks it's so important to protect the vandal from being financially accountable for his actions and want to spend money on JLO supervision etc then they should also pay for the damage caused to the victim via some form of fund preferably financed from proceeds of crime recovered by CAB or similar, just as happens when an uninsured driver causes damage they aren't financially liable for.

    You have ZERO chance of any successful JR, you would struggle even to successfully have a locus standi in the first place. If you some how struggle past that first hurdle you will need essentially a blank cheque (and we could be talking 6 figures +) to even take on such.

    The protection of a minors identity is rooted in 1000s of years of case law from both national law and more importantly international law backed by 100s of nations and organisations, to successfully challenge that would be contrary to public policy, the greater good of the state, Irish case law, European Court of Human Rights case law, international law and treaty obligations. Simply put, your not going to change the system and no amount of political will will exist to do so either.


    54and56 wrote: »
    2. I'm doing this myself and have the time so there is no cost and it's much better than watching Eastenders or whatever. If I do end up requiring a solicitor because I can't work the District Court process myself I'll make a judgment call then but I've a good bit of credit with one solicitor in particular who I've referred a lot of client work to over the years so I'm sure he'll keep his costs down or, spending on the time involved and outcome etc may not charge me at all as I've done professional favours for his clients a few times FOC.

    Forget his costs, what about all the other costs involved if?


    54and56 wrote: »
    I don't disagree. It would have been far easier, quicker and more definitive for the Super to just write the first two sentences and not decide to add in the third.

    wkD3g4R.jpg

    Having viewed your reply from the local SI, I’m curious as to what exactly you asked from them because the reference to “details” and a suggestion to make inquiries elsewhere as well as the odd mention of S48 makes me wonder if you asked for more than just a name and address? Perhaps you asked for some other evidential information?


  • #195
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    54and56 wrote: »
    Couple of things on that:-

    1. My hopes are to either recover the €2,000 the vandal cost me or to gather enough info to spark a judicial review into why the greater good of protecting the vandal and paying for resources to "support" him during his 12 month JLO supervision etc should be at my personal cost via a law which systematically prevents me from having any recourse to the civil courts to seek recompense. If the state thinks it's so important to protect the vandal from being financially accountable for his actions and want to spend money on JLO supervision etc then they should also pay for the damage caused to the victim via some form of fund preferably financed from proceeds of crime recovered by CAB or similar, just as happens when an uninsured driver causes damage they aren't financially liable for.

    2. I'm doing this myself and have the time so there is no cost and it's much better than watching Eastenders or whatever. If I do end up requiring a solicitor because I can't work the District Court process myself I'll make a judgment call then but I've a good bit of credit with one solicitor in particular who I've referred a lot of client work to over the years so I'm sure he'll keep his costs down or, spending on the time involved and outcome etc may not charge me at all as I've done professional favours for his clients a few times FOC.



    I don't disagree. It would have been far easier, quicker and more definitive for the Super to just write the first two sentences and not decide to add in the third.

    wkD3g4R.jpg



    Apparently I can hold my breath waiting for a reply as they are committed to "always" treating members of the public with respect and personal accountability in an efficient and effective manner.

    Unless of course the Garda Charter is a load of old nonsense and just some sort of organisational joke they are playing on the country.

    You hit the nail on the head. The Garda Charter is in great part a nonsense document which they had to release as part of the whole modernisation process. It has no basis in law whatsoever so don't be pinning your hopes to it. Its akin to a mission statement hung on the wall of a Jack's door when it comes to real life policing. You may not like to hear that but that's just how it is.


  • #196
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    GM228 wrote: »
    You have ZERO chance of any successful JR, you would struggle even to successfully have a locus standi in the first place. If you some how struggle past that first hurdle you will need essentially a blank cheque (and we could be talking 6 figures +) to even take on such.

    I accept you may be right but if (as pretty much everyone here is asserting) the law will prevent me from having recourse to the Civil Courts and I have to suck up the €2,000 as it's in the greater good then I'm going to see how far I can challenge that. What if the bill was €20,000 or €200,000? Does the law still maintain I'd have to suck it up? Is there no limit to the financial loss a law abiding victim has to bear in order to protect the identity of a vandal? If there is a limit what is it?
    GM228 wrote: »
    The protection of a minors identity is rooted in 1000s of years of case law from both national law and more importantly international law backed by 100s of nations and organisations, to successfully challenge that would be contrary to public policy, the greater good of the state, Irish case law, European Court of Human Rights case law, international law and treaty obligations. Simply put, your not going to change the system and no amount of political will will exist to do so either.

    I accept there are valid reasons for minors protections etc but I don't accept it should be at the financial cost to an individual law abiding citizen. If the state legislates to protect minors it should pick up all the tab, not just some of it and the very last person who should be picking up the tab is the actual victim.
    GM228 wrote: »
    Having viewed your reply from the local SI, I’m curious as to what exactly you asked from them because the reference to “details” and a suggestion to make inquiries elsewhere as well as the odd mention of S48 makes me wonder if you asked for more than just a name and address? Perhaps you asked for some other evidential information?


    This is verbatim from my letter to the super:

    "I am writing to you to request the contact details of the parents and/or legal guardians of the youth who committed criminal damage to my property on XX/XX/XXX.

    I am determined to hold the youth to financial account for the damage he caused and wish to initiate a civil case against his parents/guardians via the District Court."

    Not necessarily my finest prose but that's what the Super was responding to. I had also attached a copy of the letter of apology the JLO got from the youth and quoted the Pulse reference number etc.


  • #197
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    You hit the nail on the head. The Garda Charter is in great part a nonsense document which they had to release as part of the whole modernisation process. It has no basis in law whatsoever so don't be pinning your hopes to it. Its akin to a mission statement hung on the wall of a Jack's door when it comes to real life policing. You may not like to hear that but that's just how it is.

    You might be right and AGS may in fact be just cynically pulling the wool over the public's eye's by saying and committing to the Charter whilst having no intention of adhering to it.

    I'll keep following up and if after a few more months I still haven't had a reply I'll commence a GSOC complaint and see if that gets any traction.

    I expect that may also be a White Elephant which may produce nothing but I might as well exhaust that avenue if I have to.


  • #198
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    54and56 wrote: »
    I totally get that and am not commercially naive but I want some accountability.

    Difficulty getting paid (post judgement) is part of the reason I don't want to engage a solicitor and want to do this myself. No point throwing good money after bad if in the end I don't get paid as I'd have to my solicitor one way or the other.

    Judges don't take kindly to people representing themselves. That would go against you in itself not to mind you not knowing the legal intricacies, customary practices and having the benefit of years of experience.

    The established protocol is that your get a solicitor to represent you and manage your case because they have the knowledge and experience to do so.

    Going at it in DIY fashion pisses off judges no end because you are coming in with half a case wasting the courts time on something that can't be progressed because of someone wanting to do it DIY.

    Judges are also reluctant to hear self representation because if you don't succeed then he could face you coming back to court arguing that how could you have a fair hearing when you weren't adequately represented.

    You're on a hiding to nothing at this lark. Get a solicitor it suck it up.

    There's hardly any point anyway since you haven't a hope in hell of collecting any judgement.
    If you are out to prove a point, well the other family aren't going to give 2 fúcks about your point.
    The only point you'll prove is your staggering naivety.


  • #199
    RobbieMD
    Registered Users Posts: 449 ✭✭RobbieMD


    54and56 wrote: »
    You might be right and AGS may in fact be just cynically pulling the wool over the public's eye's by saying and committing to the Charter whilst having no intention of adhering to it.

    I'll keep following up and if after a few more months I still haven't had a reply I'll commence a GSOC complaint and see if that gets any traction.

    I expect that may also be a White Elephant which may produce nothing but I might as well exhaust that avenue if I have to.

    What would your complaint to GSOC be? Is it not just a waste of their limited time, time that they could spend investigating actual Garda misconduct?


  • #200
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    Judges don't take kindly to people representing themselves. That would go against you in itself not to mind you not knowing the legal intricacies, customary practices and having the benefit of years of experience.

    The established protocol is that your get a solicitor to represent you and manage your case because they have the knowledge and experience to do so.

    Going at it in DIY fashion pisses off judges no end because you are coming in with half a case wasting the courts time on something that can't be progressed because of someone wanting to do it DIY.

    Judges are also reluctant to hear self representation because if you don't succeed then he could face you coming back to court arguing that how could you have a fair hearing when you weren't adequately represented.

    You're on a hiding to nothing at this lark. Get a solicitor it suck it up.

    There's hardly any point anyway since you haven't a hope in hell of collecting any judgement.
    If you are out to prove a point, well the other family aren't going to give 2 fúcks about your point.
    The only point you'll prove is your staggering naivety.

    Access to civil courts is not reserved for those who can afford or choose to incur the cost of a solicitor.

    This is an interesting read - http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Review_of_the_Administration_of_Civil_Justice_-_Review_Group_Report

    If I somehow get an opportunity to take a case and of I decide to do so I may or may not decide to engage a solicitor but if I don't whether judges like or dislike the fact I'm representing myself isn't going to be high on my decision criteria.


  • #201
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭54and56


    RobbieMD wrote: »
    What would your complaint to GSOC be?

    Two possibilities:-

    1. If the Youth Diversion Super doesn't reply to the registered letter and copy by email I sent in January I will complain that they are not upholding the standards they set out in the Garda Charter and committed to in the Victims Charter etc. It might be immediately dismissed if it doesn't meet GSOCs investigation criteria and if it does confirmation of that by GSOC will close off that avenue.

    2. If the Youth Diversion Super confirms (as the local Super did) that the Children's Act prevents me from revceiving the info I need to seek recompense from the civil court I may complain that applying the Youth Diversion programme in my case was the incorrect decision to make and as the victim my circumstances and the effect of applying the Youth Diversion programme on my ability to seek recourse to the civil courts were not taken into account.
    RobbieMD wrote: »
    Is it not just a waste of their limited time, time that they could spend investigating actual Garda misconduct?

    I don't know. I'm sure if my complaint(s) don't meet their assessment / investigation criteria they won't waste any time on it.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement