You know the concept of formality, I am sure. It is a small legal stumbling block, a petty justification for dismissing a case or ignoring justice altogether. These are the kinds of things that arise when, after witnessing the murder of your family, your dog, and your dog`s family, you have to sit quietly while a liberal activist judge releases the criminal on trivial procedural grounds. “Ha ha ha ha ha,” the criminal shouts before passionately kissing the judge and jumping arm in arm towards freedom. Abandoned by everything you trusted, you are forced to take the law into your own hands. When law enforcement seizes evidence, they must do so legally. For example, if a warrant (see below) allows law enforcement to access your garage to search for a stolen car, law enforcement will not be allowed to extend the search to seize the contents of your email account on your computer. Your email account does not and cannot contain a stolen vehicle. This is beyond the permissible limits of research. These “technical defences” have characterised the Irish criminal justice system for many decades, so the technical requirements have been refined and the Gardaí has extensive experience in ensuring that all requirements are met. Therefore, the possibility is reduced that circumstances will lead someone to “get away with a formality”.
However, the popularity of the concept is not and a “technical defense” is sometimes hoped for in other cases of road traffic. People have the right to move around society without being arrested or detained by the police, except in certain circumstances. For example, the police can`t stop your car just because they don`t like a red pickup truck and you drive a red pickup truck. Or they suspect that criminal activity is underway. On the other hand, the police have the right to stop your car if you drive too fast or commit any other traffic offence. They will then have the opportunity to talk to you and observe your behavior. They are rarely allowed to lawfully pursue their investigations with questions or detentions beyond the original reasons for the arrest. You see, under a 300-year-old law (because that`s how England works), no sitting MP can resign unless they accept another lucrative office under the crown. This meant that in order to take into account the fact that members sometimes had to resign, the government was obliged to give them a new “job”, particularly that of steward and bailiff of Northstead Manor.
It is essentially a completely invented position that exists only to satisfy this bizarre formality, an office without duties or privileges or even official sauces. The fact that this is the preferred solution, rather than changing the law — which, you know, are the actual jobs of these members of Parliament — should tell you a lot about their quality in those jobs. A technical feature is an insignificant or very small detail. You might view your scuffed, unpolished shoes as an unimportant technical issue when dressing up for a job interview. Downplayed versions, on the other hand, are absolutely the truth on television. An example is when the formality does not directly acquit someone, but goes in favor of the accused. Most lawsuits are not made or broken for one thing for both parties. It is therefore reasonable to expect a formality to affect the outcome of a case, but it is unlikely to decide or break it. Another example is the formality that results in the abandonment of a precarious case or the absence by the police of a reasonable suspicion or probable cause due to technical details. If a case under construction is not particularly strong, it is not uncommon for prosecutors to abandon such cases or avoid putting too much energy into them when something, technical or otherwise, gets in the way.
A formality that is just enough so that an already dubious case does not end up in court is therefore also justified, as happens in real life. If they get away with it completely, if the facts against them seemed solid, it is almost always because the police or the prosecutor`s office committed a serious fault or completely dropped the ball on something extremely important. Even then, for them to get away with it, rather than just dropping a few charges, the judge must really want to send a message, or the wrongdoing or botching must be so extreme that the entire conviction would have been overturned on appeal anyway. “Exploiting loopholes” and “winning cases on the basis of formality” are the skills of the legal class, which are at the same time most admired and despised by non-lawyers. The expression is so common that there is a perception that it can be easy to “get away with a technical thing”. Most of the time, this is not the case. The statutory provisions giving rise to criminal or tax liability must be interpreted strictly (as held by the Supreme Court in Inspector of Taxes v. Kiernan [1981] IR 117-3 ITR 19). One of the consequences of this situation is that the legal requirements (“technical details”) must be complied with. The idea is that the Oireachtas has formulated rules and it is not for the judiciary to choose which of those rules should be applied, thus usurping the role of the Oireachtas. Since criminal law involves the application of sanctions, some precision is expected in the formulation and application of the law.
The most common source of so-called protective measures is drunk driving (drugs while driving, which are now a widespread problem, are subject to similar rules). Mark de Blácam SC, in the introduction to his book on the subject, highlights the contemptuous tone often used when it comes to technical defenses. As noted above, a “formality” is a requirement of the law, but these requirements are often mentioned in a derogatory manner in the case of drunk driving. de Blácam says: PS. Today, many traffic offences are automatically detected and dealt with by means of a lump sum notice. Communication sometimes requires a faultless correction by Gardaí. For example, if a person driving a car registered in their mother`s name is detected by an unmanned camera as speeding, the notification is sent to them as a registered owner. The Fixed Fee Office must be informed so that the decision can be reissued on behalf of the driver. If the OPCF is not notified, subpoenas are common. The Gardaí has a useful FAQ on lump sums.
Let`s take this example: a person was flagged by a member of the public for dangerous passing. The individual apparently admitted the offence, but found a slight discrepancy in the details of the offence when official notice was received. The person then hoped to “understand the low point, how to dodge the points” in order to be able to “get away with a technical peculiarity since the time is wrong”. I never liked the phrase. If an accused “gets away with formality”, the prosecutor has not substantiated the charge against the accused, who emerges without a guilty verdict and is therefore innocent. Thus, when someone referring to a case prepared by the Attorney General says that “every `i` should be dotted and “t” crossed out to ensure that no one gets away with a formality,” he means that the evidence proving guilt must be properly prepared.