Caught with Valium tablets

Have you been charged for possession of controlled drugs for sale or supply? Calls us Now on 018724717 or 0868257176 to represent you. Under the legislation, it is an offence to be in possession of a controlled drug with the intention of selling it illegally. Anyone found guilty of this offence is liable to a class C fine on summary conviction in a District Court. If the court decides, he or she could be subject to a fine and a prison term not exceeding 12 months. On conviction on indictment for this offence, the court can decide on an appropriate fine. The court can also impose a life sentence for this offence if it decides it is necessary. However, lesser sentences can also be imposed, either with a fine or alone. Where the market value of the drugs is €13,000 or more, the person convicted is liable for a minimum sentence of 10 years. This does not apply, however, where the court is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances. Similar penalties apply to someone convicted of importing drugs with a value of €13,000 or more. Anyone found guilty of supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug into a prison, children detention school or remand centre can receive a class B fine on summary conviction or a prison term not exceeding 12 months or both. On conviction on indictment, the court can impose an appropriate fine or a maximum prison term of 10 years or both. Under the Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 it is an offence to sell or supply for human consumption substances which are not specifically proscribed under the Misuse of Drugs Acts, but which have psychoactive effects. Anyone found guilty of such an offence is liable for a class A fine on summary conviction or imprisoned for a term not exceeding 12 months or both. On conviction on indictment they can be fined or imprisoned for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

Call us today on 018724717 or 0868257176

Unlawful arrest and detention

Have you been unlawfully arrested? Call us today on 018724717 or 0868257176 to represent you. If you have been unlawfully arrested, evidence obtained as a result of that arrest will be inadmissible. For example, if you were mistakenly told by a Garda that you were being arrested under the wrong section of the Road Traffic Act, the arrest and the blood sample taken would be unlawful. The blood sample would not be admissible as evidence. Evidence obtained while you are unlawfully detained has also been unlawfully obtained and will be inadmissible. For example, if you have been in custody for longer than the maximum period allowed and you make a confession, that confession will not be admissible in evidence against you. Evidence obtained in breach of your right to reasonable access to a lawyer is also inadmissible as evidence against you. For example, if you request a lawyer and your request is refused, any statements you make to the police will be inadmissible as evidence against you.

Call us today on 018724717 or 0868257176

Careless driving

Have you been charged for Careless Driving in Ireland? Call us now on 018724717 or 0868257176 to represent you. Section 52 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the place. (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.  

Call us today on 018724717 or 0868257176

Guns pull in Dublin

  Section 2 of the Firearms Act, 1925 Subject to the exceptions from this section hereinafter mentioned, it shall not be lawful for any person after the commencement of this Act to have in his possession, use, or carry any firearm or ammunition save in so far as such possession, use, or carriage is authorised by a firearm certificate granted under this Act and for the time being in force. (2) Save in any of the cases hereinafter excepted from this section, every person who after the commencement of this Act has in his possession, uses, or carries any firearm without holding a firearm certificate therefor or otherwise than as authorised by such certificate, or purchases, uses, has in his possession, or carries any ammunition without holding a firearm certificate therefor or in quantities in excess of those authorised by such certificate, or fails to comply with any condition subject to which a firearm certificate was granted to him, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be punishable accordingly. (3) This section shall not apply to any of the following cases and such cases are accordingly excepted from this section, that is to say:— (a) the possession or carriage of a firearm under and in accordance with a permit issued under this Act and for the time being in force; (b) the possession, use, or carriage of a firearm or ammunition by a member of the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann or of a lawful police force in Saorstát Eireann in the performance of his duty as such member; (c) the possession, use, or carriage of a firearm or ammunition by a registered firearms dealer in the ordinary course of his business as such dealer; (d) the possession or carriage of a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of business by a person engaged in the business of carrying or of warehousing goods for reward; (e) the possession of a firearm or ammunition on board a ship as part of the equipment of the ship; (f) the carriage for sporting purposes only of a firearm or ammunition under instructions from and for the use of the holder of a firearm certificate for such firearm or ammunition; (g) the possession, carriage, or use of a humane killer in the ordinary course of business by a butcher, slaughterman, knacker, or other person engaged in the business of the humane slaughter of animals. Section 25 of the Firearms Act, 1925 Any person who commits an offence under this Act in respect of which no other punishment is provided by this Act shall be liable in respect of each such offence— (a) on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment; or (b) on conviction thereof on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment. Do you require representations? Free call 018724717 or 0868257176 NOW to consult the experts.

Right to Legal Advice in Custody

Supreme-Court-Ireland A recent decision of the Supreme Court has important implications for the manner in which evidence gathered by Gardaí during questioning and the right to legal advice in custody. In the case of DPP v Gormley and DPP v White, the question arose (amongst others) as to whether statements made by a person in custody to Gardaí after that person had requested legal advice from a solicitor, but before the solicitor had arrived at the Garda station and had given legal advice, could be admissible as evidence against that person. The Supreme Court looked at several international examples as to what is the current norm in criminal trials as to whether such statements would be allowed, or whether a right to legal advice would preclude such statements being admitted as evidence against that person. The Court also looked at the state of Irish law. The Court found that the situation in Irish law was that as long as the Gardaí had made reasonable efforts to contact and obtain a solicitor once a person had requested one they could continue with the questioning of a person. Any statements made by that person before the solicitor arrived and gave advice could be used against that person. The Court looked at the European Convention on Human Rights where the right against self-incrimination was guaranteed unless a person waived that right. The Convention was breached where a person was not allowed the benefit of legal advice when requested prior to questioning. The Court looked at several jurisdictions including the United States (where the Miranda case clarified a person’s right against self incrimination and to legal advice, also to be informed by police of these protections), Canada and New Zealand. In these jurisdictions it was an entitlement not to to be interrogated after legal advice had been requested and before a solicitor/lawyer had give legal advice. If questioning was allowed to continue after it was requested and before legal advice was given, a person’s Constitutional rights would be diluted. A person, the Court stated, was entitled to trial in due course of law according to the Constitution. This may not affect the manner in which Gardaí gather evidence in general. However once a person has been arrested and has liberty denied for the purposes of questioning to gather evidence against that person, it is intimately connected with the trial itself and the person’s Constitutional protections shall apply. Fairness of process must apply from the time of arrest. What the case means for those accused of criminal offences is that once a person requests to see their solicitor while in custody (usually a Garda Station) Gardaí should stop questioning that person and go about providing that person with a solicitor. Should they continue questioning that person before the solicitor gives legal advice, anything said by that person prior to the solicitor’s advice would be inadmissible at a trial. This case moves Ireland further into line with international norms of criminal procedure and the rights of an accused person in custody. It may have an effect on cases which are currently in the Courts. It may also have an effect on convicted persons who had 1.) requested legal advice, 2.) were questioned after requesting a solicitor but prior to the solicitor arriving and 3.) the statements made in that time were used as evidence against that person. This would only apply however if that person objected to the evidence on these grounds during trial. The would also appear to bring the possibility of a right to have a solicitor present at all times during questioning of a person by Gardaí one step closer, as is the norm in many jurisdictions. The full decision is available here
2 pages