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

New Garda powers to allow access to mobile phones, changes to ‘stop and search’

2

Comments

  • #52
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Witcher wrote: »
    The only warrant a PC can issue is a S.26 warrant under the MDA 1977/84.

    They can't issue S.48/S.10 warrants.

    Not going to engage with pedants twice in one thread - you know exactly what I mean and what it entails to the current discussion.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1924/act/10/section/88/enacted/en/html#sec88
    OP wrote:
    Garda sources said the pandemic had accelerated the commission of large numbers of crimes, including minor offences such as low-value drugs transactions, on messaging apps as in-person contact became restricted. They believed that trend would remain long after the pandemic and that the new power was vital to strengthen Garda searches to include access to mobile phones and other devices.


  • #53
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    pioneerpro wrote: »
    Not going to engage with pedants twice in one thread - you know exactly what I mean and what it entails to the current discussion.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1924/act/10/section/88/enacted/en/html#sec88
    I don't think it entails anything to the current discussion. The scheme of the bill provides for a new class of warrant that only a district judge can issue (head 15). It is only warrants issued under head 15 which will carry the obligation to disclose passwords and encryption keys (head 16).


  • #54
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,325 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Yurt! wrote: »
    A legal eagle friend of mine called the striking down of Kenny as the creation of a "Father Dougal clause" for AGS in evidence collection.

    Your legal eagle friend makes more money from crime than most criminals.
    You pay them far too much heed.


  • #55
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't think it entails anything to the current discussion. The scheme of the bill provides for a new class of warrant that only a district judge can issue (head 15). It is only warrants issued under head 15 which will carry the obligation to disclose passwords and encryption keys (head 16).

    The point that search warrants in relation to drug offences (i.e. the establishment of grounds for a warrant based on the incontrovertible 'opinion' of a guard that he 'smelt something') was traditionally the purview of not just a DJ but also a PC, or a Super.

    These laws are basically going to end up with flipping low-level drug offenders into confidential informants against their will and without any of the requisite protections or benefits in place.

    Sound alarmist and unprecedented? Bookmark this post.

    image.png


  • #56
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Your legal eagle friend makes more money from crime than most criminals.
    You pay them far too much heed.

    Let's get rid of barristers altogether. tHeY gET pAId fOr RePResEntInG CrimInALS.

    (He doesn't specialise in criminal law but carry on regardless.)


  • #57
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't think it entails anything to the current discussion. The scheme of the bill provides for a new class of warrant that only a district judge can issue (head 15). It is only warrants issued under head 15 which will carry the obligation to disclose passwords and encryption keys (head 16).

    Actually, more to the point - and far more in line with Garda misuse of powers in the past:

    image.png

    Head 9 grants this stop-and-search power on the discretionary and non-verifiable ability of the Garda in question to 'smell cannabis' in any case. This has never, in the history of the MDA, been successfully challenged.


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    purplefields wrote: »
    Also from https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobiles-and-other-devices-1141159.html :


    Ireland really need some kind of civil liberties organisation like they have in other countries.
    After Covid, I can't see myself staying in Ireland for much longer. (Especially now with the corp tax changes and facebook remote working.)

    Most of Europe has pretty strong police powers. Not sure how facebooks decision affects you unless you work there.


  • #59
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,349 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Jerry Attrick wrote: »
    All sounds good to me.

    But then again, I've nothing to hide, and unlike Herrick or the Data Protection Commissioner I don't particularly want to see criminals and fraudsters benefitting from the GDPR and other "privacy is more important that putting scumbags away" legislation.

    Everyone has something to hide.
    Everyone has some secrets or some skeleton that best kept in the past.

    It's important to recognise how much personal information is kept on personal devices now compared to 20 years ago, and how someone with a little bit of access can uncover whole troves of information.

    The Gardai are just people, same as you and me, and are bound to start snooping on someones phone if they have access.
    Leo Varadkar makes plea to family of Irish journalist who died by suicide after a garda leaked nude images
    No one was ever punished for this.
    https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/leo-varadkar-makes-plea-family-20874298


  • #60
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Padre_Pio wrote: »

    The Gardai are just people, same as you and me, and are bound to start snooping on someones phone if they have access.

    When thinking of civil liberties concerns, laws like these are only as good as the dumbest or most malevolent Guard in the force with the powers to use them.

    AGS is staffed by people, and when you have people, you have a percentage of them that will bound to be malevolent or bad actors. That's a law of nature.

    Eventually, someone will have their life badly damaged by poorly conceived and applied law put in the hands of an individual who simply shouldn't have them. Oversight should always be to the fore, not a shrug of the shoulders with the reflexive and naive impulse to say 'shur Gardai always do the right thing, you only should be afraid if you have something to hide.'


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    There's only really one argument here from people in relation to the erosion of civil liberties - that it would somehow result in a drop in crime or at least an increase in prosecution rates.

    Historically and demonstrably, however, the erosion of civil liberties in just about any culture leads to increased criminality at best, and societal collapse at worse.

    Empowering a historically corrupt state body with a host of broad-ranging discretionary powers, stated with purposeful ambiguity and lacking any oversight reciprocal to the shift in power dynamic, will lead to one outcome and one outcome only - increased criminality.


  • #62
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,325 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Millions upon millions of euro and many lives have even saved because the Garda can bug criminals phones and also their solicitors and accountants phones.

    Every bit of law that assists them to continue this war I applaud.


  • #63
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Millions upon millions of euro and many lives have even saved because the Garda can bug criminals phones and also their solicitors and accountants phones.

    Every bit of law that assists them to continue this war I applaud.


    AGS can absolutely not wiretap legally privileged communications between clients and legal counsel. We live in a pluralistic democracy with rule of law not Turkmenistan controlled by a Stasi like apparatus. You're discrediting yourself with posts like these.

    The fact you think they can and would cheerlead it on shows where you're at. Long may organizations like the ICCL do their job in the face of eye-twitching nutters who would turn the country into a South American police state from the 1970s in a hearbeat if they weren't so busy posting slop on the internet.


  • #64
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,325 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Yurt! wrote: »
    AGS can absolutely not wiretap legally privileged communications between clients and legal counsel. We live in a pluralistic democracy with rule of law not Turkmenistan controlled by a Stasi like apparatus. You're discrediting yourself with posts like these.

    The fact you think they can and would cheerlead it on shows where you're at. Long may organizations like the ICCL do their job in the face of eye-twitching nutters who would turn the country into a South American police state from the 1970s in a hearbeat if they weren't so busy posting slop on the internet.

    Of course they can and they have done. They have laws to assist them.
    Calm down.


  • #65
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Millions upon millions of euro and many lives have even saved because the Garda can bug criminals phones and also their solicitors and accountants phones.

    In what alternate reality is this? You are talking complete pony.

    It's previous abuse led not just to the scandal of one government, but the resignation of haughey nearly a decade later

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_phone_tapping_scandal

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-sought-to-defend-phone-tapping-despite-conceding-its-illegality-1.3327587
    As the case neared trial, the State sought yet another legal opinion, this time from Niall Fennelly, in October 1986. In a 14-page opinion, he wrote that “the telephone tapping activities complained of, in the assumption that they are unlawful and unjustified, do indeed constitute a breach of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to privacy”.

    The case went to the High Court and, in January 1987, Mr Justice Liam Hamilton found in favour of Kennedy and Arnold, awarding them damages of £20,000 each and Mavis Arnold £10,000.

    In his judgment he said the telephone tapping was “an attack on [the plaintiffs’] dignity and freedom as individuals and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society”.

    Posting this for Posterity. You're on both the wrong side of history and the wrong side of democracy with your draconian and arrogant assertions.

    image.png

    I could go on about McDowell refusing to release any information or oversight regarding the number of phonetaps authorised during his tenure, particularly in relation to the persecution of legal and constitutionally protected civil protests - the Rossport 5 come to mind.


  • #66
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Of course they can and they have done. They have laws to assist them.
    Calm down.


    You are posting verifiable slop. Remember you are posting in a legal forum. Fennelly Commission, read up on it.

    There is not a judge in the land that would approve a warrant for wiretapping of client/counsel phone communications.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,325 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Yurt! wrote: »
    You are posting verifiable slop. Remember you are posting in a legal forum. Fennelly Commission, read up on it.

    There is not a judge in the land that would approve a warrant for wiretapping of client/counsel phone communications.

    I’m not talking about client/solicitor conversations. They can’t be listened into even in prison. I’m talking about criminals individually be they solicitor, accountant or plain drug lord.
    There have been loads of such businesses raided and tapped in this country.


  • #68
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    tayto lover wrote: »
    I’m not talking about client/solicitor conversations. They can’t be listened into even in prison. I’m talking about criminals individually be they solicitor, accountant or plain drug lord.


    You're embarrassing yourself now. Dig up.


  • #69
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,325 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Yurt! wrote: »
    You're embarrassing yourself now. Dig up.

    Simple as googling it.

    Solicitor’s office raided in CAB swoop for assets
    The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) and the Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau (GNDOCB) raided a solicitor’s office this morning, along with five residential premises.

    The search was part of a swoop on the assets and activities of an international organised crime gang involved in the sale and supply of controlled drugs.

    Six searches
    In total, six searches were conducted in counties Dublin, Meath and Waterford.
    Gardai seized documentation in relation to the ownership of assets, financial records, documentation and electronic storage devices, which are all now being examined by CAB officers.

    No arrests were made


  • #70
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Simple as googling it.

    Solicitor’s office raided in CAB swoop for assets
    The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) and the Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau (GNDOCB) raided a solicitor’s office this morning, along with five residential premises.

    The search was part of a swoop on the assets and activities of an international organised crime gang involved in the sale and supply of controlled drugs.

    Six searches
    In total, six searches were conducted in counties Dublin, Meath and Waterford.
    Gardai seized documentation in relation to the ownership of assets, financial records, documentation and electronic storage devices, which are all now being examined by CAB officers.

    No arrests were made


    That's not a wiretap of client/counsel communications dunderhead.


  • #71
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,325 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Yurt! wrote: »
    That's not a wiretap of client/counsel communications dunderhead.

    I didn’t say it was. Read the post again.

    PS
    I’m not going to report the attempted insulting post either.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    tayto lover wrote: »
    I didn’t say it was. Read the post again.

    PS
    I’m not going to report the attempted insulting post either.

    Report away. I'll reiterate it just for clarity

    You are making draconian and arrogant assertions that are completely untrue regarding the legality of phone tapping and its role in a modern democracy.

    When corrected on this, you were incendiary and condescending.

    As the other poster implies, the hot takes and pseudo-info is best kept for After Hours or something, not the Legal Discussion forum.


  • #73
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,349 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    tayto lover wrote: »
    I’m not talking about client/solicitor conversations. They can’t be listened into even in prison. I’m talking about criminals individually be they solicitor, accountant or plain drug lord.
    There have been loads of such businesses raided and tapped in this country.

    I'd say your confusing legal phone wiretaps obtained with a judge or senior Gardai permission, and this ruling which allows the average Gardai to charge you with a crime if you don't unlock your phone and surrender personal information.

    This would come under the US 5th Amendment, where the burden is on the police to prove your guilt. Here it seems they'll throw you in jail if you don't give them the proof to throw you in jail.

    Just to remind people:
    Surveillance in Ireland is basically governed by two laws: the 1993 Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages Act, and the 2009 Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act.

    Under the 1993 Act:

    Gardaí or the Defence Forces can tap phones and listen to phone calls, open and read letters before they arrive to their recipient, and (potentially) read emails
    After the Garda Commissioner or Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces applies for permission from the Justice Minister
    For up to three months (extendable)
    If they can show the surveillance will yield evidence they couldn’t otherwise get
    As part of an investigation into serious crime, to prevent a serious crime, or to protect the security of the State
    Under the 2009 Act:

    Gardaí, the Defence Forces and Revenue can secretly record you with audio and video devices
    For three months
    They can break into your home to implant a device, and again to remove it
    If they can, they have to get permission from a District Court judge, but if it’s an emergency, a “Superior Officer” in each agency decides, and they get 72 hours to engage in the surveillance
    Gardaí, the Defence Forces and Revenue can secretly put a tracking device on your vehicle, and follow your movements
    For four months
    Without permission from a District Court judge, but with the approval of a “Superior Officer” within each agency.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/state-surveillance-ireland-gardai-wiretapping-email-monitoring-gardai-2099537-May2015/


  • #74
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52,325 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    I'd say your confusing legal phone wiretaps obtained with a judge or senior Gardai permission, and this ruling which allows the average Gardai to charge you with a crime if you don't unlock your phone and surrender personal information.

    This would come under the US 5th Amendment, where the burden is on the police to prove your guilt. Here it seems they'll throw you in jail if you don't give them the proof to throw you in jail.

    Just to remind people:


    https://www.thejournal.ie/state-surveillance-ireland-gardai-wiretapping-email-monitoring-gardai-2099537-May2015/

    Ok. I was clearly mistaken in what was meant in the other posts. That clears it up. Apologies to all concerned.


  • #75
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,750 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    I'd say your confusing legal phone wiretaps obtained with a judge or senior Gardai permission, and this ruling which allows the average Gardai to charge you with a crime if you don't unlock your phone and surrender personal information.

    This would come under the US 5th Amendment, where the burden is on the police to prove your guilt. Here it seems they'll throw you in jail if you don't give them the proof to throw you in jail.

    Just to remind people:


    https://www.thejournal.ie/state-surveillance-ireland-gardai-wiretapping-email-monitoring-gardai-2099537-May2015/
    The reference to the 5th Amendment reminded me that the rationale for the right against self-incrimination is based on lessons learnt from the Star Chamber. We are not back there yet but we are heading in that direction.

    "One of the weapons of the Star Chamber was the ex officio oath where, because of their positions, individuals were forced to swear to answer truthfully all questions that might be asked. Faced by hostile questioning, this then gave them the "cruel trilemma" of having to incriminate themselves, face charges of perjury if they gave unsatisfactory answers to their accusers, or be held in contempt of court if they gave no answer." (Wiki.)


  • #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The Gardai have never needed this. They use Peace Commissioners to obtain search warrants for anything they know a judge will reject them for, or when they're just bored at the weekends/late at night.


    When a PC signs a warrant he can be , unlike a judge, summoned to court and challenged by the defence as to his state of mind when he signed it. He can be required to demonstrate why he was satisfied there was a good case made by the Garda and can be questioned and he has to show his reasoning. If he is not available or dead the warrant can be invalidated.

    So it is not just a case of the PC issuing the warrant on the word of a Garda. The warrant a PC signs, unlikea warrant signed by a judge, does not "speak for itself". If a PC signs a warrant, as you say, that a judge would reject, he will need an explanation far beyond relieving a garda's boredom.


  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    purplefields wrote: »
    Also from https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-garda-powers-to-allow-access-to-mobiles-and-other-devices-1141159.html :


    Ireland really need some kind of civil liberties organisation like they have in other countries.
    After Covid, I can't see myself staying in Ireland for much longer. (Especially now with the corp tax changes and facebook remote working.)
    They already have a lot of power to stop and search

    vehicles with Section 8 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/32/enacted/en/print#sec8

    EDIT i see now "The provision is modelled on section 8 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 and will replace that provision. The wording has been changed slightly from section 8 to make it clear that a member has the power to require the vehicle to stop."


  • #78
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    When a PC signs a warrant he can be , unlike a judge, summoned to court and challenged by the defence as to his state of mind when he signed it. He can be required to demonstrate why he was satisfied there was a good case made by the Garda and can be questioned and he has to show his reasoning. If he is not available or dead the warrant can be invalidated.

    So it is not just a case of the PC issuing the warrant on the word of a Garda. The warrant a PC signs, unlikea warrant signed by a judge, does not "speak for itself". If a PC signs a warrant, as you say, that a judge would reject, he will need an explanation far beyond relieving a garda's boredom.


    The warrant will still be executed. Which if applied for, issued and acted on frivolously, is an unpleasant and potentially traumatizing experience for a citizen who may not be guilty of a crime.


  • #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Yurt! wrote: »
    The warrant will still be executed. Which if applied for, issued and acted on frivolously, is an unpleasant and potentially traumatizing experience for a citizen who may not be guilty of a crime.
    only if signed. i can't see a pc signing it without good reason or signing one a judge would reject or one applied for frivolously.the pc will have to show he made the garda make a good case


  • #80
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    only if signed. i can't see a pc signing it without good reason or signing one a judge would rject


    You have a faith in legal lay persons (often political flunkies appointed by Ministers) that I do not possess.


  • #81
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,638 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Yurt! wrote: »
    You have a faith in legal lay persons (often political flunkies appointed by Ministers) that I do not possess.

    Source?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Yurt! wrote: »
    You have a faith in legal lay persons (often political flunkies appointed by Ministers) that I do not possess.
    i don't have any faith in them ,only the fact they can be called to account. a defence lawyer would make short work of a warrant signed frivolously. That would not look good for the PC.
    They may be political flunkies but i cannot see such people put themselves in a frivolously signed position ,not because they are any good, but for their own self preservation. They want to keep their PC status and their flunkiness. They can be removed from office for breaching social media guidelines so i imagine frivolously signing search warrants and being shown up in court that they did not ascertain there was a genuine case made by the garda wouldn't be good for them.
    The point is they can be questioned on why they issued the warrant and have to show the garda made a case, not just rubberstamping


  • #83
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Witcher wrote: »
    Source?


    Peace Commissioners for the most part county councillors from one of the governing parties in a coalition. You don't need a source - this is common knowledge.

    Shatter only appointed a handful that weren't FG or Labour during his tenure (and before he was Justice Minister criticized FF for appointing half the party as PCs when they were in power).


  • #84
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,638 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Peace Commissioners for the most part county councillors from one of the governing parties in a coalition. You don't need a source - this is common knowledge.

    Shatter only appointed a handful that weren't FG or Labour during his tenure (and before he was Justice Minister criticized FF for appointing half the party as PCs when they were in power).

    I'm afraid we do, you can't just make claims and not provide evidence or a source when questioned on it.


  • #85
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Witcher wrote: »
    I'm afraid we do, you can't just make claims and not provide evidence or a source when questioned on it.


    Here's a good link I find useful from time to time...

    www.google.com

    Give it a go


  • #86
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/civil_law/peace_commissioners.html#ld1a9a



    You may apply to be appointed as a Peace Commissioner on your own behalf, you may be nominated by another person or you can nominate someone you feel would be suitable for this position.



    The application for appointment must be in writing and should include some information about the nominee and the reasons why you or they may be suitable for appointmen


  • #87
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,638 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Here's a good link I find useful from time to time...

    www.google.com

    Give it a go

    So you don't have a source for your claim.

    Grand


  • #88
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Witcher wrote: »
    So you don't have a source for your claim.

    Grand


    Here's a deal: I'll take being right and not bowing to you pestering me for a source for something that is common knowledge.

    You can maintain your ignorance.

    Or alternatively, you could use the link to the search engine I graciously provided to find out the percentage of Peace Commissioners appointed from then governing parties (hint: there's a few articles on this and the percentage from coalition parties is always sky-high). Please don't get distressed when the information leads you back to the conclusion that Justice Ministers appoint party flunkies.

    Have a good evening.


  • #89
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,851 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    Witcher wrote: »
    So you don't have a source for your claim.

    Grand

    Sorry Witcher he can’t be expected to do all the work.

    He directed you to Google it?


  • #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The General Scheme of the Garda Síochána Powers Billincludes



    Provide that the powers provided for in this Bill may be exercised in respect of offences suspected or committed on or after the date of commencement, and in relation to offences suspected or committed prior to that date.

    What about Section 7 of ECHR - No punishment without law?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    only if signed. i can't see a pc signing it without good reason...

    What you've done here is invented a scenario whereby there's some oversight of faulty warrants being served as a matter of course in Ireland. You're so far off the mark here it's not funny.

    The only reported instance in the last decade where the Gardai admitted liability and settled after the issuing (and REFUSAL TO AMEND OR REVEAL) a faulty warrant was in the case whereby a partner from Arthur Cox was greeted by the ARU kicking in his door. They had to go to pretty far to seek any remediation, and you can be damn sure that anyone other than a partner in a major law firm would not be achieving any degree of satisfaction.

    They served a no-knock warrant, without identifying themselves, on incredibly vague and faulty grounds, and then closed ranks - denied responsibility and to this day have refused to apologise. It is so common a problem that one of the gardai actually advised the victims that they could use this faulty warrant/raid to get the rest of the day off work.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30966725.html
    Gardaí asked was there “anything in the apartment they would not want to find" and Mr Donald replied no. "At this stage I knew they were gardai and they had made a terrible mistake."

    When Mr Donald looked at the search warrant, it said "apartment at the back of building", did not have names on it or the number.

    As gardaí left, one of them said "you can use this to get the rest of the day off," he said.

    At a later meeting in Store Street Garda Station, there was no apology and a refusal to provide a copy of the search warrant, the court heard. They were told it was "a live warrant" which worried them it could happen again. They had to threaten legal action to get a copy of the warrant.

    ...

    Gardaí eventually admitted responsibility but they never said sorry, he said.

    John M Fitzgerald SC, for the State, said this was "admitted to be a catastrophic mistake" where gardai were looking for a marijuana growhouse.

    Asked did he hear officers shout "gardai" before coming in, Mr Donald said he did not and if they did he would have heard them in what was just a two-bed apartment.



    As for your other point of contention:
    He can be required to demonstrate why he was satisfied there was a good case made by the Garda and can be questioned and he has to show his reasoning. If he is not available or dead the warrant can be invalidated.

    Very simply put, the Garda can outright lie to the PC for grounds of attainment of a warrant. When, after the fact, this is revealed - the Garda can simply indicate that he thought he was acting in good faith and in accordance with the law. As per Hardiman's last dissent, any evidence collected thereafter is not deemed inadmissable in court.

    As per the poster above, anyone who has any experience with Peace Commissioner in the role of their job knows exactly who they are, how they're appointed, and how politicised that process is. This is reverse gish-galloping from the keyboard warriors who'd be better served googling and reading some of the papers from the last decade rather than trying to prove their own intellectual superiority.


  • #92
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,349 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    i don't have any faith in them ,only the fact they can be called to account. a defence lawyer would make short work of a warrant signed frivolously. That would not look good for the PC.
    They may be political flunkies but i cannot see such people put themselves in a frivolously signed position ,not because they are any good, but for their own self preservation. They want to keep their PC status and their flunkiness. They can be removed from office for breaching social media guidelines so i imagine frivolously signing search warrants and being shown up in court that they did not ascertain there was a genuine case made by the garda wouldn't be good for them.
    The point is they can be questioned on why they issued the warrant and have to show the garda made a case, not just rubberstamping

    I bolded the points where you assume the Gardai have a sufficiently transparent and robust system of oversight.

    It's painfully clear that the Gardai do not have this.


  • #93
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,530 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    The General Scheme of the Garda Síochána Powers Billincludes



    Provide that the powers provided for in this Bill may be exercised in respect of offences suspected or committed on or after the date of commencement, and in relation to offences suspected or committed prior to that date.

    What about Section 7 of ECHR - No punishment without law?

    There already is law in place, this Act essentially repeals previous legislation, consolidates it and updates it in certain areas. There aren't very many new powers actually included in the Bill -Gardaí already have the power to demand passwords under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

    There's an awful lot of drama about this and plenty of uninformed discussion being bandied about. Little consideration being given to the fact that this Bill was published directly as a result of the recommendations of the Future of Policing in Ireland Commission, which was founded in order to address the deficiency's in our justice system. It's findings were lauded by the very people that are now criticizing the publication of this Bill which is ironic.

    Here's a list of current legislation that this Bill will repeal - i.e. where much of the content of the Bill actually derives from.


    1.png
    2.png
    3.png
    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    I bolded the points where you assume the Gardai have a sufficiently transparent and robust system of oversight.

    It's painfully clear that the Gardai do not have this.

    Is it? There have been significant reforms of Garda oversight in recent years, particularly with the foundation of the Policing Authority and enhanced powers for GSOC and the Garda Síochána Inspectorate. Aside from this, the new The Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill, which was published in April, will amalgamate the oversight bodies and significantly enhance their powers. There are huge reforms underway in the justice system at the moment.


  • #94
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    There's an awful lot of drama about this and plenty of uninformed discussion being bandied about. Little consideration being given to the fact that this Bill was published directly as a result of the recommendations of the Future of Policing in Ireland Commission, which was founded in order to address the deficiency's in our justice system. It's findings were lauded by the very people that are now criticizing the publication of this Bill which is ironic.

    It's findings are mutually exclusive to its implementation, which is the problem.

    It's poorly scoped, ambiguously worded, and without the requisite reciprocality of oversight and responsibility versus the expansion of powers.

    In short, the very people who lauded the FOPI Commission are utterly distraught at the manipulation of the resultant legislation and the complete non-engagement with the spirit in which this whole process was put in place.
    There aren't very many new powers actually included in the Bill -Gardaí already have the power to demand passwords under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

    I don't know where to start here, only to say there's no point in replying if you're going to pretend not to see the many many points raised in this thread directly refuting his.


  • #95
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,530 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    pioneerpro wrote: »
    It's findings are mutually exclusive to its implementation, which is the problem.

    It's poorly scoped, ambiguously worded, and without the requisite reciprocity of oversight and responsibility versus the expansion of powers.

    In short, the very people who lauded the FOPI Commission are utterly distraught at the manipulation of the resultant legislation and the complete non-engagement with the spirit in which this whole process was put in place.



    I don't know where to start here, only to say there's no point in replying if you're going to pretend not to see the many many points raised in this thread directly refuting his.

    You're talking absolute nonsense regarding reciprocity of oversight. The Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill completely transforms the oversight of An Garda Síochána and will also result in the greatest transformation of internal disciplinary processes since the foundation of the organisation.

    I'm all for fair discussion, but don't try and make out as if there isn't reciprocity of oversight. That just isn't true.


  • #96
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    You're talking absolute nonsense regarding reciprocity of oversight.

    Please read the thread before coming in here with an agenda and embarrassing yourself. This has been discussed with citations. Here's the start.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117420953&postcount=49


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,530 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    pioneerpro wrote: »
    Please read the thread before coming in here with an agenda and embarrassing yourself. This has been discussed with citations. Here's the start.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117420953&postcount=49

    I’m well aware of Professor Conway’s commentary, I’ve had the pleasure of discussing criminal justice matters with her on many an occasion.

    It still doesn’t change the fact that you are outright wrong in saying there isn’t reciprocity of oversight given the parallel oversight provisions contained in the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill - which I suspect you didn’t know even existed given your inability to acknowledge said proposed oversight changes.


  • #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Witcher wrote: »
    So you don't have a source for your claim.

    Grand

    Ah here now Witcher, you can't be expecting people to prove their case. That's not how the internet works.

    Thankfully for them then that despite their claims, it's how the justice system does.


  • #99
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Ah here now Witcher, you can't be expecting people to prove their case. That's not how the internet works.

    Thankfully for them then that despite their claims, it's how the justice system does.

    Can I have a source for the claims you're making in this post?

    I'm 100% correct on the Peace Commissioners - anyone who has a passing brush with local politics knows the gov of the day divvies out PC appointments to party hacks for something to have on their election literature and it's been that way for a long time. It's a local politics meme.

    I also enjoy watching silly posters like Witcher flap around. The magical Google machine, it's there for you if you want it too leprechaun. Do an Ask Jeeves on Shatter and Peace Commissioners and let me know what you find.

    Practice typing 'Yurt is correct and I'm a silly sausage' you'll need it if you want to swing by the thread again on this topic. Happy googling.


  • #100
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Ah Jaysus, Niner's gone quiet just like Witcher. The auld Google is hard on the fingers when you find things that don't match your argument alright.

    Night lads. Don't worry, there's a brand new day tomorrow to ask people for sources for plainly evident things that most people know and are at the tip of your own fingertips.


  • #101
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    I’m well aware of Professor Conway’s commentary, I’ve had the pleasure of discussing criminal justice matters with her on many an occasion.

    What an amazing and fortuitous coincidence for your position! Your association of course completely nullifies both her and my statements without any need to address their underlying points :D

    Also amazing you didn't comment on the twitter thread directly given your foreknowledge and respect for Professor Conway.

    I'd ask you why that is, but I think the answer is fairly clear to anyone engaging with this dialogue in good faith.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement