Court rules garda not required to warn youth offence to drop trousers

A garda was not required to warn a youth he was commiting an offence when he dropped his trousers in front of her, the President of the High Court has ruled.

Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said the Public Order Act does not specifically require a warning be first given the youth was committing an offence if he did not desist.

He was satisfied the then 17-year-old youth’s conduct was “so self-evidently and so notoriously criminal in nature” no such warning was required.

The judge found against the youth after being asked to decide whether the District Court was wrong to convict him of offensive conduct in the absence of such a warning.

He was put on probation for six months by the District Court.

The youth had been among a crowd of young males drinking alcohol in the North Great Charles Street/Seán O’Casey Avenue area of Dublin city centre on the evening of April 18th, 2013.

Two female gardaí approached them and the youth, who was very drunk, was arrested and warned he was committing the offence of excessive intoxication in public.

As one of the gardaí spoke to him, he pulled down his trousers and underwear and when told to stop, he did not but ran off.

He was not caught that evening but was subsequently summonsed to appear before the District Court.

Following his conviction, his lawyers asked the District Court judge to ask the High Court whether Section 5 of the 1994 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, under which he was prosecuted, required he must be specifically advised by the garda that failure to comply with a prior “desist” request is an offence.

A person required to desist under Section 5 should get the same warning to desist or leave an area, as required under Section 8.2 of the same Act, making it an offence only if the person fails to obey the warning, the youth’s lawyers argued.

The DPP disputed those arguments and said there could not have been any doubt in the youth’s mind what he was doing was unlawful.

Mr Justice Kearns agreed with the DPP the conduct was so evidently criminal no warning was required.