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

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

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users Posts: 4,897 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #93
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #95
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #97
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 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.


  • Options
    #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • Options
    #99
    Yurt2
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #100
    Yurt2
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    pioneerpro wrote: »
    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




    As for your other point of contention:



    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.
    I didn't invent anything. If the Garda lies to the PC it is not the PC's fault. The garda could lie to a judge too. What i meant was the PC is supposed to seeks reasons and not just sign the warrant a judge wouldn't sign as someone suggested. The PC can be questioned as to his reasoning in signing it, a judge cannot


    If a garda lies to a PC and the PC is then challenged in court he will be able to state his reasons for signing. The fact they were lies would not be his fault.That is different than just signing for a bored garda. and when you say i am so far off the mark its not funny you are not adressing the issue i raised at all. The point i made re the PC being challenged in court is quoted in a garda power book by a barrister. see attached from Garda Powers Law and Practice.That is what i said and if you say i said something else you are so far off the mark......it is funny


  • Options
    #103
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    I didn't invent anything. If the Garda lies to the PC it is not the PC's fault. The garda could lie to a judge too. What i meant was the PC is supposed to seeks reasons and not just sign the warrant a judge wouldn't sign as someone suggested. The PC can be questioned as to his reasoning in signing it, a judge cannot


    If a garda lies to a PC and the PC is then challenged in court he will be able to state his reasons for signing. The fact they were lies would not be his fault.That is different than just signing for a bored garda. and when you say i am so far off the mark its not funny you are not adressing the issue i raised at all. The point i made re the PC being challenged in court is quoted in a garda power book by a barrister


    It is however the fault of government after government for presiding over a situation where complete laymen and laywomen with no training (or none sought), and are more often than not appointed on the basis of political connections, are put in a position where they can conceivably sign off on warrants that could have a major detrimental effect on citizens.

    The closest equivalent I suppose is magistrates in the UK signing off on warrants after hours. But they receive mentorship, training, must complete in-court hours and are appraised on the dispensation of their duties. There's a national framework for their development and a judicial college overseen by a top judge to ensure standards are upheld.

    Ireland? Yerra, Podge is in the local cumman.

    If a PC signs off on a dodgy, frivolous or even malevolent warrant - the damage is done to the individual. I'm not sure you'd just shrug your shoulders and just say 'ah the court will make this right' if your house was raided in full view of your neighbours off the back of an unlawful warrant.

    As I stated earlier on in thread, these powers when given, are only as good as the sh*ttiest cop or dumbest PC when it comes down to upholding the highest legal standards - which is what we're aiming for right?


  • Options
    #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Yurt! wrote: »
    It is however the fault of government after government for presiding over a situation where complete laymen and laywomen with no training (or none sought), and are more often than not appointed on the basis of political connections, are put in a position where they can conceivably sign off on warrants that could have a major detrimental effect on citizens.

    The closest equivalent I suppose is magistrates in the UK signing off on warrants after hours. But they receive mentorship, training, must complete in-court hours and are appraised on the dispensation of their duties. There's a national framework for their development and a Judicial College overseen by a top judge to ensure standards are upheld.

    Ireland? Yerra, Podge is in the local cumman.
    That is not the point though. The point i was addressing was when someone said PC would sign warants judges wouldn't for bored garda. The only point i am making is a PC can be held responsible for his warrant he signs


  • Options
    #105
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    That is not the point though. The point i was addressing was when someone said PC would sign warants judges wouldn't for bored garda. The only point i am making is a PC can be held responsible for his warrant he signs

    It is the point though, as the whole discussion is revolving around what are the highest standards for the execution of warrants balancing the rights of the individual and the public need to enforce law (firmly but proportionately).

    Fat lot of good to the person subject to the unlawful warrant that shouldn't have been signed off on. And how exactly is the PC held responsible? Judge tells him: "Here Podge, don't be signing warrants like that again."


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Yurt! wrote: »
    It is the point though, as the whole discussion is revolving around what are the highest standards for the execution of warrants balancing the rights of the individual and the public need to enforce law (firmly but proportionately).

    Fat lot of good to the person subject to the unlawful warrant that shouldn't have been signed off on. And how exactly is the PC held responsible? Judge tells him: "Here Podge, don't be signing warrants like that again."
    it is the point i made. the judge can invalidate the warrant.


  • Options
    #107
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    SoulWriter wrote: »
    it is the point i made. the judge can invalidate the warrant.


    We've now moved from a PC wouldn't sign off on such warrants, to a judge will invalidate the warrant and that's a band-aid around such a set of circumstances.

    The thread from post one is revolving around the balance of civil liberties. Again, if you were subject to a crooked warrant and your homestead upturned signed off on by a PC who knew no better, I'm not sure would finger-wagging from a judge remedy your resentment having been put through such a situation.


  • Options
    #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Can I have a source for the claims you're making in this post

    Nope cause this is the internet


  • Options
    #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Yurt! wrote: »
    We've now moved from a PC wouldn't sign off on such warrants, to a judge will invalidate the warrant and that's a band-aid around such a set of circumstances.

    The thread from post one is revolving around the balance of civil liberties. Again, if you were subject to a crooked warrant and your homestead upturned signed off on by a PC who knew no better, I'm not sure would finger-wagging from a judge remedy your resentment having been put through such a situation.
    we haven't gone anywhere you have. i made one point only. someone said PC will wily nilly give out warrants judges wouldn't. i simply said there is a procedure in place where the pc can be questioned and that would make them unlikely to

    Again, if you were subject to a crooked warrant and your homestead upturned signed off on by a PC who knew no better, I'm not sure would finger-wagging from a judge remedy your resentment having been put through such a situation
    i made no comment about that. i made only one point. and i am out of this now because i do not want to be quoted for saying somewthing i didn't


  • Options
    #110
    Jerry Attrick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Jerry Attrick


    Batrachotox wrote: »

    There’s always one.

    Give me a copy of the keys to your house please, I’d like to have a rummage around. I know you won’t mind as you’ve nothing to hide.

    Just call to the house next time you're passing and I'll gladly show you around. (I assume that, you being so incredibly smart, you already know the address).

    Be sure to bring photo ID with you plus up to date proof that you're not infected with Covid 19, swine pox or any other infectious disease.


  • Options
    #111
    Jerry Attrick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Jerry Attrick


    Padre_Pio wrote: »

    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.

    I don't have a smartphone! I do however have a ten year old desktop PC that had Windows 7 on it when I bought it!

    But with five million people in Ireland (make that 6M by the time that this legislation gets through) do you really you reckon that some ambitious garda is going to try to get himself promoted by going through my internet history to check whether or not I followed Ming the Mindless's lead and searched for a picture of Saoirse McHugh's backside on The Guardian website?

    Well garda, you can cuff me now;I admit it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Yurt! wrote: »
    We've now moved from a PC wouldn't sign off on such warrants, to a judge will invalidate the warrant and that's a band-aid around such a set of circumstances.

    The thread from post one is revolving around the balance of civil liberties. Again, if you were subject to a crooked warrant and your homestead upturned signed off on by a PC who knew no better, I'm not sure would finger-wagging from a judge remedy your resentment having been put through such a situation.

    Thank you.

    I literally put the example of the Partner in Arthur Cox whose house (and life) was ransacked by the Gardai on the grounds of a completely invalid search warrant - and they refused to either amend or cancel the warrant.

    It was such a common occurence that unrecalcitrant Gardai present advised them that they could 'take the rest of the day off work' as a result.

    Oh, and it was a no-knock/no-announce warrant without a number or address just for the cherry on top.


  • Options
    #113
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Jerry Attrick wrote: »
    But with five million people in Ireland (make that 6M by the time that this legislation gets through) do you really you reckon that some ambitious garda is going to try to get himself promoted by going through my internet history to check whether or not I followed Ming the Mindless's lead and searched for a picture of Saoirse McHugh's backside on The Guardian website?

    In short, yes. They've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the various abuses of PULSE over the last decade that they are completely untrustworthy in possession or with access to any degree of PII.

    Nearly one million breath tests recorded by the internal garda Pulse system, in fact, never occurred and 14,700 motorists were wrongly convicted in the courts.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/garda-scandal-timeline-alcohol-fcpn-3313178-Mar2017/

    There are over 18,000 requests for data retention information every year, 98% of these by Gardai. All of these are incompatible with EU law, with no oversight. This systemic corruption and arrogance is about to get the Graham Dwyer case thrown out.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/concern-over-graham-dwyer-phone-records-case-a-crisis-of-state-s-own-making-1.4412864
    The true problem is the State’s refusal to implement this decision, and comply with the DRI ruling, in the subsequent six years. By failing to do so, it has not only jeopardised a conviction in this one case, but potentially, also in every single other case since in which mobile records have been used.

    That’s because Ireland has no compliant legislation guiding how the Garda and other services may access such records lawfully. So even if records were being retained for, say, six months, as is lawful under the DRI decision, there’s no updated legislation to permit access to it.


  • Options
    #114
    Jerry Attrick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Jerry Attrick


    pioneerpro wrote: »

    Thank you.

    I literally put the example of the Partner in Arthur Cox whose house (and life) was ransacked by the Gardai on the grounds of a completely invalid search warrant - and they refused to either amend or cancel the warrant.

    It was such a common occurence that unrecalcitrant Gardai present advised them that they could 'take the rest of the day off work' as a result.

    Oh, and it was a no-knock/no-announce warrant without a number or address just for the cherry on top.


    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30966725.html

    Any idea how much compo the pair of them got? I suspect it was mega.


  • Options
    #115
    Jerry Attrick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Jerry Attrick


    pioneerpro wrote: »

    In short, yes. They've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the various abuses of PULSE over the last decade that they are completely untrustworthy in possession or with access to any degree of PII.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/concern-over-graham-dwyer-phone-records-case-a-crisis-of-state-s-own-making-1.4412864

    I appreciate your concerns for my privacy, sanity and liberty. But what leads you to believe that I'm even in the Pulse system? Has my shameful vice of silently breaking wind on crowded public transport been discovered?


  • Options
    #116
    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.

    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.

    Today brings Michael McDowell's views on the subject. Really looking forward to you claiming he already deferred to your position in Birchills over a brandy following the last Gonzaga past-pupils dinner or some other such nonsense :D

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-mcdowell-true-extent-of-new-powers-sought-by-garda%C3%AD-a-cause-for-concern-1.4594267
    From the viewpoint of a private citizen, the powers to be given to gardaí to require access to computers, iPads, laptops and mobile phones are also worrying. There is no new express duty for gardaí to volunteer all relevant facts to the judge issuing a search warrant – merely a duty to answer the judge’s questions if any.


    If a search warrant for a premises yields nothing mentioned in the warrant, the searching members may still demand the production of these items and require any person there to provide access to them by passwords or decryption keys

    ...

    You don’t get to ask a lawyer for advice during a search of your home. Is there even to be a defence of “reasonable defence of privacy”? It’s not in the Bill.

    Someone failing to grant access to their devices may be arrested and charged before the District Court because the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment on indictment.

    You may be briefly reassured that there are to be codes of practice in relation to the use of these proposed statutory powers. But breach of these codes or of the terms of the proposed new law by arresting or searching or seizing gardaí does not mean that any evidence thereby arising becomes automatically inadmissible.


    This Bill needs additional protections and constraints. It can’t just be rubber-stamped through the Oireachtas like most Bills these days which are guillotined through both Houses using the Coalition’s large majority.

    The constitutional privacy of the individual needs concrete expression and workable safeguards. You never know who may be directing police operations in the next few years.


  • Options
    #117
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Jerry Attrick wrote: »
    I appreciate your concerns for my privacy, sanity and liberty. But what leads you to believe that I'm even in the Pulse system? Has my shameful vice of silently breaking wind on crowded public transport been discovered?

    Nearly one million breath tests recorded by the internal garda Pulse system, in fact, never occurred and 14,700 motorists were wrongly convicted in the courts.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/garda-scan...13178-Mar2017/

    What part of this statement are you having trouble with? 1 million breathtests would represent 1/3rd of all Driving Licenses held.

    What leads you to believe you're NOT in the PULSE system, or that the historic precedence for outright fabrication of information time and time again in order to illegally prosecute motorists won't eventually impact you or yours?

    Or, you know, that you might have someone in your family with special needs, who was aneurotypical or who otherwise would be categorised as extremely vulnerable.


    https://dublininquirer.com/2019/10/23/elizabeth-what-happened-to-dara-quigley-should-never-happen-to-anyone-else
    In 2017, members of An Garda Síochána forcibly detained Dara Quigley under the Mental Health Act 2001 for walking naked in a Dublin street. The Mental Health Act dictates that An Garda Síochána receive training in how to detain a person.

    The footage was held by An Garda Síochána. Somebody recorded the CCTV images off a monitor screen and shared them in a WhatsApp group. The images were posted on Facebook, and it’s estimated that they were shared 125,000 times. Several days later, Dara Quigley took her own life.

    No organisation or individual has ever been held responsible for their role in the violation of Dara’s rights. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) confirmed to the Irish Times that a garda accused of sharing the footage will not face criminal charges.


  • Options
    #118
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users Posts: 4,897 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    We also had the Fennelly Commission examining the Gardai illegally recording calls.


  • Options
    #119
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    pioneerpro wrote: »
    Today brings Michael McDowell's views on the subject. Really looking forward to you claiming he already deferred to your position in Birchills over a brandy following the last Gonzaga past-pupils dinner or some other such nonsense :D

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-mcdowell-true-extent-of-new-powers-sought-by-garda%C3%AD-a-cause-for-concern-1.4594267

    Who would've thought we'd see McDowell as a champion of civil liberties? I suppose the spectre of a SF Justice Minister has prompted a road to Damascus moment in his mind.

    It will actually be quite interesting to see how a SF government will see issues like this and how they interact with both the Dep. of Justice and AGS.

    Around 20-25 years ago (and likely more recently than people realize) they would have probably been the most surveilled political movement in Europe, so their stance on these matters will be curious to watch.


  • Options
    #120
    Stephen Gawking
    Registered Users Posts: 272 ✭✭Stephen Gawking


    Gardai not exceeding their powers? Having a laugh.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20258634.html

    https://m.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/secret-garda-phone-recordings-violated-citizens-human-rights-35600939.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    pioneerpro
    Registered Users Posts: 598 ✭✭✭pioneerpro


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Who would've thought we'd see McDowell as a champion of civil liberties?

    He's staunchly not - but the endemic corruption of Gardai during his tenure - on exactly the grounds we are discussing here - led to him bringing in the first kneejerk reforms.

    In particular it was McDowell introduced severe penalties (up to five years in jail) for Gardaí who leaked information under the Garda Síochána Act 2005, after the force was extensively criticised by the Morris and Barr Tribunals. The high-level ranks of the Gardai then leaked this to the papers ahead of time in an attempt to discredit him.

    In short, the Gardai went out of their way to leak information to the press in an attempt to discredit and circumvent both the Minister for Justice at the time, and the findings published in the Morris and Barr Tribunals, leading to the necessity for direct legislative intervention.

    It's no surprise that he feels strongly about this - and it really gives an insight into the sort of unthinking charlatans who represent the dissenting opinion here given this is he man who introduced the constitutionally incompatible Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, 2005!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement