Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:16 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5716 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 ... 143  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
Bizarre logic to reason that he should be let off with his crime because he was handcuffed when arrested. That’s a separate issue. He was still guilty of drink driving. These judges are overstepping the mark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10105
9 years for manslaughter, should have got more than that for his dole fraud.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-n ... y-13935595
Sorry about quoting the mirror, heard about it on the radio.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 20811
Duff Paddy wrote:
Bizarre logic to reason that he should be let off with his crime because he was handcuffed when arrested. That’s a separate issue. He was still guilty of drink driving. These judges are overstepping the mark.



Constitution mate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20342
lorcanoworms wrote:
9 years for manslaughter, should have got more than that for his dole fraud.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-n ... y-13935595
Sorry about quoting the mirror, heard about it on the radio.


9 years, will be out in 5 or 6. No remorse at all, sounds a complete psychopath. No doubt we will be hearing his name again in a few years time for another serious crime


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 20811
https://www.thejournal.ie/insurance-cancelling-festivals-in-ireland-4624624-May2019/

Every cloud I suppose


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13090
Duff Paddy wrote:
Bizarre logic to reason that he should be let off with his crime because he was handcuffed when arrested. That’s a separate issue. He was still guilty of drink driving. These judges are overstepping the mark.

Fruit of the poison tree, innit?

The arrest is unlawful, so information stemming from that arrest was obtained unconstitutionally.

It prevents coppers from dragging lads into a station to give them a bit of a kicking before extracting a confession.

Turns out courts take those constitutional rights quite seriously. You cannot infringe such rights unless there's a serious threat to somebody else's rights. The classic example is DPP (Shaw) v Evans wherein the accused was suspected of involvement in the disappearance of two young women. Rather than charge the man, the Gardaí felt that it was appropriate that in the circumstances it would be worth holding him for a little bit longer than was legally allowed and to gently encourage him to see if he could remember any fresh facts about the women's locations.

Rather gloriously described in the IRs as follows:-

Quote:
. Per Henchy, Griffin, Kenny and Parke JJ.) That, in deliberately choosing to endeavour to save the life of M. at the cost of ignoring for the time being the normal rules governing the appellant's right to liberty, the police had endeavoured to protect the more important of two conflicting rights under the Constitution and, accordingly, they had not acted unlawfully incontinuing to detain the appellant in custody without bringing him before a court at the first reasonable opportunity.


For a drink driving, you do things by the book and aren't allowed handcuff lads, or take lads into the cells for a quiet word.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50011
Was this person suspected of drink driving or shown to be over the limit via a breathalyser? If the latter then surely your examples are irrelevant.

And are you seriously telling me that a belligerent drunk can't be handcuffed just because they happened to be caught drunk behind the wheel (not saying this guy was belligerent but you've given a sweeping statement)?

If there was no question as to the validity of the arrest then the arrest itself is lawful. The method of arrest might be an issue (you're telling me it is in all circumstances) so separate that and reprimand the Garda. Relating one to the other is ridiculous. This isn't evidence discovered as fruit of the poisoned tree. What possible difference would there be in establishing if the person was drink driving based on their method of arrest?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13090
No, a belligerent drunk would be expected to be handcuffed.

The whole point is that a person who is not belligerent cannot be handcuffed for no reason as a matter of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50011
anonymous_joe wrote:
No, a belligerent drunk would be expected to be handcuffed.

The whole point is that a person who is not belligerent cannot be handcuffed for no reason as a matter of course.


And if they are, how does it affect their defence for an offence that pretty much comes down to a breathalsyer (and blood test?)?

I can accept your other examples as ones where the Gardai are trying to shake some evidence out but drink driving is purely forensics, no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13090
I've just explained that it's unconstitutional and therefore taints the entire arrest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50011
anonymous_joe wrote:
I've just explained that it's unconstitutional and therefore taints the entire arrest.


You used the term 'fruit of the poison tree' which is commonly used to refer to evidence that is discovered unlawfully.

What evidence was discovered unlawfully?

It makes zero sense to suggest that handcuffing someone could effect their defence for a drink driving charge. The arrest itself was lawful, the method, which had no bearing on the evidence, was not. IMO, they should be treated as separate and it's a shame a judge has decided otherwise but then this thread wouldn't exist if judges were perfect.

If there is a clear instruction in place not to handcuff then yes, this Garda was stupid to risk what ultimately happened. I am curious why there is an instruction to allow an un-handcuffed drunk person into a Garda vehicle though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50011
What is the specific part of the constitution being applied, btw?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13090
Article 40(4)(1) principally and Article 40(3)(1) too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
It’s so ridiculous that you’d wonder did they cuff this guy deliberately and then advise him to challenge it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
CM11 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
I've just explained that it's unconstitutional and therefore taints the entire arrest.


You used the term 'fruit of the poison tree' which is commonly used to refer to evidence that is discovered unlawfully.

What evidence was discovered unlawfully?

It makes zero sense to suggest that handcuffing someone could effect their defence for a drink driving charge. The arrest itself was lawful, the method, which had no bearing on the evidence, was not. IMO, they should be treated as separate and it's a shame a judge has decided otherwise but then this thread wouldn't exist if judges were perfect.

If there is a clear instruction in place not to handcuff then yes, this Garda was stupid to risk what ultimately happened. I am curious why there is an instruction to allow an un-handcuffed drunk person into a Garda vehicle though.


It almost sounds like a complete scam doesn’t it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50011
anonymous_joe wrote:
Article 40(4)(1) principally and Article 40(3)(1) too.


Quote:
4 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.


Quote:
3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.


:?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 20811
AJ on nonsense fire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34766
CM, it has already established that judges, and indeed the law as a whole, is scientifically illiterate.

Like in Alice in Wonderland, facts are exactly what they say they are. They can make up a couple of new ones with each judgement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13090
CM11 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Article 40(4)(1) principally and Article 40(3)(1) too.


Quote:
4 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.


Quote:
3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.


:?:

Yeah?

You're not expecting me to set out the entirety of constitutional law, are you? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 7:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50011
anonymous_joe wrote:
CM11 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Article 40(4)(1) principally and Article 40(3)(1) too.


Quote:
4 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.


Quote:
3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.


:?:

Yeah?

You're not expecting me to set out the entirety of constitutional law, are you? :lol:


I asked you which specific parts of the constitution were being referred to, so yes, at least some sort of argument showing how the parts you referenced shows clearly that handcuffing someone who the Gardaí have a legitimate reason to arrest is unconstitutional.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 7:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
The emperor’s new clothes - oldest scam in the book


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
https://m.independent.ie/business/perso ... 94276.html

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 35354
Location: For Wales the Welsh and Leinster
anonymous_joe wrote:
Wingtastic wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
waguser wrote:
this is bullshit

Judges could have ruled anyway they wanted on the validity of the warrant

they chose to let him off

which was convenient

shower of plum


Been done before and yourself and camroc were proven wrong on that occasion too.

Leave the law to the big boys.

Where is this coming from? Is Waguser someone who has a personal grievance with a solicitor/judge, is this just a general legal profession rant or is he a freeman or what?


Wag got held down by a gang of men in dark robes and gang raped. Repeatedly.

Then they defiled him with gavels.

Well that's a unique and rather disturbing image.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 20811
Duff Paddy wrote:
https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/plan-to-cut-whiplash-awards-is-shot-down-by-judges-38094276.html

:lol:



It's time Irish people got a bit of cop.

We need to elect these shameless parasitic cúnts


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
Mullet 2 wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/plan-to-cut-whiplash-awards-is-shot-down-by-judges-38094276.html

:lol:



It's time Irish people got a bit of cop.

We need to elect these shameless parasitic cúnts


We can’t lower the lotto wins we’re handing out for soft tissue injuries because it might be challenged :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34766
Time for ythe Dáíl to legislate and hold a Constitutional referendum if required.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
camroc1 wrote:
Time for ythe Dáíl to legislate and hold a Constitutional referendum if required.

The judges think they run the country so they’ll resist any attempts by politicians to change the status quo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13090
You now want judges to be involved in making law...?

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6532
anonymous_joe wrote:
You now want judges to be involved in making law...?

:lol:


They do all the time. I'm sure you are aware of mandatory sentencing for drugs offences. Our beloved judiciary have taken it on themselves to ignore the law therefore rewriting it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10105
anonymous_joe wrote:
You now want judges to be involved in making law...?

:lol:

Why not Barons in England a little Corsican general in France.
Though the first law they would make is for them to work at home.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
anonymous_joe wrote:
You now want judges to be involved in making law...?

:lol:

We want them to stop giving a years salary to people who say they have a sore neck. They seem to have a problem with this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 20811
anonymous_joe wrote:
You now want judges to be involved in making law...?

:lol:


Eh that's the opposite of what we said.

Keep up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
Normal human: sore neck fair enough €500-750 is adequate compensation
Crazy judge: here have a year’s salary


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13090
A year's salary? I wasn't aware whippies were getting north of €35k. You're verging on hysterics at this point. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
anonymous_joe wrote:
A year's salary? I wasn't aware whippies were getting north of €35k. You're verging on hysterics at this point. :lol:

Ever hear of income tax


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 20811
:lol:

"Whippies"

Speaks volumes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:10 pm
Posts: 610
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/cou ... 93143.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
Mullet 2 wrote:
:lol:

"Whippies"

Speaks volumes


The used car salesmen of the professional world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50011
anonymous_joe wrote:
You now want judges to be involved in making law...?

:lol:


Um......case law?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27703
Mullet 2 wrote:
:lol:

"Whippies"

Speaks volumes


Actually sore neck doesn’t sound half as scary as whiplash. Bit like vulture funds.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5716 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 ... 143  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 45jumper, Achahoish, bessantj, bimboman, Conspicuous, DOB, DragsterDriver, flaggETERNAL, Google Adsense [Bot], iarmhiman, JB1981, Jeff the Bear, Kid A, KnuckleDragger, Mog The Almighty, Mr Mike, PCPhil, Plato'sCave, redderneck, SickeninglyArrogantPerson, sockwithaticket, Tehui, TokenSarriesFan, Ulsters Red Hand, Wilson's Toffee, Yourmother and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group