Justice?

How many Irish people speak Gaelic these days ?
 
I'm English and I consider myself fluent after enough beer

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 
"Affirming Judge Gibbons’ decision, Mr Justice Noonan said there was no ambiguity in the Act that when performing the Evidenzer test, the garda must supply statements in Irish and in English."

Nothing to do with Justice or otherwise really - the Guards simply messed up. Not much point in having a law if the people who are required to enforce it are incapable of doing so. Defendant was entitled to the statements in both Irish and English and whether we like it or not he was denied his rights under the law. We can't apply laws that are designed to apply to all simply to suit the circumstances of each individual case. It was, in my view, absolutely correct to point out the anomaly.
 
A loophole exposed and used by smart lawyers.

Garda not doing their job properly again. How many times have the Garda failed in this? Too many. Look at the Polish driving licence idiocy and you will see nothing has changed. Lazy policing or incompetence? Both.


It also shows the stupidity of trying to keep a dead language alive. The failure of teaching Irish as a language must be recognised. Sadly.
 
The law is the law. IF it's as clear as its reported that it must be in Bearla and Irish it's surprising that the State did not concede. Now that it's gone to the high court it's now case law and unless the State get their house in order it's as good a get out of jail as any. For those of you who think that it shouldn't happen I have a question for you. What if it was yourself or someone close to you were presented with a similar suitsution would you not take advantage of it? The onus is on the state at all times to bring a safe and sound case to court. Judge Gibbons was correct to state the case. If he was wrong the High Court would have let him know. Drink driving is one of the most hard fought cases in court. I am in court every day and see it regularly. Jjh
 
Guards fault??

What makes you think it was the Guards fault?

The machine can print in either Irish or English. but not both for the same punter.
Far more likely some penpusher got the specification wrong when the tender was being written. Sometimes the purchasing rules put in place to keep the public happy that no backhanders are in play makes for very convoluted purchasing at the end of the day and this kind of thing can result.

That said, unless he was able to fluently ask for it as gailge and manage to answer any questions in court as gailge, he should have been told to sling his hook
 
Why do I think it was the fault of An Garda Siochana?

Simples - the Guards are required to enforce the law ergo they should have been aware that they were not in compliance with the law when presenting the punter with an English version only. The question as to why, as you say, the machine could only print in English is a separate one. If the guards were not happy that a machine that they were being requested to operate would allow them to comply with the law then they should not have accepted the machine in the first instance. They messed up because either they ordered, or someone ordered on their behalf, a machine that would not leave them in compliance. Either way they failed to notice that they were likely to find themselves in this position. They are required to enforce the law and therefore have a clear and unambiguous responsibility to ensure that their actions do not leave them vulnerable to challenges such as this.

Whether the punter could speak Irish or was from Ireland or not is an irrelevance. Given the recent history of An Garda Siochana in places like Donegal and elsewhere I would never be happy to see them flout the law in any shape or form. The solicitor in this case earned his fee by by highlighting the fact that An GS had failed to comply with the law. It is a matter for the legislators to change the law but not for An GS to flout it.
 
There will always be loopholes in law. Most people want the law to be black and white when in reality it is no such thing. Even simple things like STOP signs where one would think there is no defence if you don't stop can be defended by a good legal eagle. Jjh
 
Not a "loophole"

I must say that I have a difficulty with describing this incident as the discovery of a "loophole".

A loophole for me exists when there is an ambiguity about the law which allows people to exploit it. This is what regularly happens in Revenue cases where clever accountants find ways around the law without actually contravening it. Where such "loopholes" are discovered the Revenue make it their business to close down the loophole by removing the ambiguity that allowed people to circumvent the the law without actually breaking it.

In this particular case the High Court made it plain that the law on this matter was clear and unambiguous. That being the case there was no "loophole". What actually happened was a failure on the part of the authorities to properly implement that clear and unambiguous law. That is as far from being a "loophole" as is possible.

The State dug its own grave in this particular case and the solicitor did a good job in exposing that failure. A clear case of the authorities failing to RTFM.
 
Last edited:
I was using the word loophole in a loose scence. There are plenty more waiting to trip up the unweary Guard. I am not a legal professional but attend court every day with prisoners in costudy. I have seen a lot in the last 18 years. Jjh
 
Point accepted.

For the record I am not a legal professional either.

I don't put it down to any particular Garda but rather as a failure on the part of the Garda authorities generally.

I think the media have been describing it as a loophole which I consider to be a misrepresentation of how the situation actually arose.
 
To the man in the street anything that's seen as a bit sharp ( which this wasn't ) is a loophole. This was a case of a lawyer doing a good job. I am a great believer and supporter of our law. Jjh
 


Back
Top Bottom