Month: January 2022

This year has seen a massive increase in the number of fraud incidents reported to gardaí, a trend driven largely by bank scams and unauthorised card transactions.

Fraud was up by 72 per cent in the 12 months to September 2021, compared with the previous 12-month period.

Quarter three of 2021 set a record for reported fraud incidents. Between July and September, 4,171 incidents were reported, more than double the amount reported in quarter three of 2020.

This was the highest quarterly total for fraud incidents since the Central Statistics Office (CSO) began compiling crime statistics in 2006.

Most other crime categories have seen a decrease this year. This is particularly the case for homicide offences (including murder, manslaughter and dangerous driving causing death).

Overall, homicides decreased by 49 per cent (from 82 to 42) in the annualised figures up to September 2021. This includes a 32 per cent decrease in murders, which went from 37 in the previous annual period to 25 this year.

However, sexual offending continued to rise this year, with 3,306 offences reported in the 12-month period up to September, a 9 per cent increase on the previous period and a 20 per cent increase since 2017.

While assaults and similar offences have fallen over the 12-month period, by 4.1 per cent, there was a spike in such incidents during quarter three of this year, which particularly affected younger men and older women.

There was an 11 per cent increase in assault-type offences in quarter three, compared with quarter three of 2020. Offences with a male victim aged 18 to 29 increased by 34 per cent to 896 incidents and offences against women over 60 increased by 68 per cent to 126 incidents.

Burglaries were down 36 per cent, thefts 20 per cent and robberies 18 per cent on an annual basis.

The CSO advised that the impact of Covid-19 restrictions during that period should be considered when looking at the figures.

It also reported that gardaí recorded 516 offences relating to breaches of Covid-19 regulations in quarter three of 2021. This figure was significantly lower that those recorded in any other quarter since restrictions were introduced. The CSO said this reflects “the relatively low level of Covid-19 restrictions compared to earlier quarters”.

Cancelled 999 calls
The improper cancellation of 999 calls by gardaí on the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, which resulted in some incidents not being recorded on the Pulse system, may have impacted the recording of crime statistics, the CSO warned.

“The CSO is awaiting clarification on the full impact of the issue from [the Garda], including the time periods involved [how far back this issue goes], the crime types impacted and, crucially, the estimated numbers of crimes which were not recorded on Pulse due to inappropriate cancellation of CAD calls, before it can determine the impact on recorded crime statistics,” CSO statistician Sam Scriven said.

CSO crime statistics continue to be published with the “under reservation” caveat. This caveat was first introduced following a Garda Inspectorate report in 2014 which found serious issues with how crime statistics were being recorded by gardaí.

“The statistics under reservation categorisation will remain in place until such time as the CSO is satisfied that the level of accuracy and completeness of the underlying data is of sufficient quality,” the CSO states on its website.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/fraud-offences-increase-by-72-this-year-driven-by-bank-scams-and-card-transactions-1.4761079

The High Court has refused an application by a hospital worker to quash a decision that prevented her from working from home. The applicant claimed that she was at high risk from Covid-19 due to her health history and that the hospital failed to comply with HSE requirements in making the decision.

Delivering judgment in the case, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan held that the case arose solely from the individual contract of employment between the applicant and the hospital. As such, the court held that the case was a matter of private law and was not amenable to judicial review.

Background
The applicant worked for a hospital as an Attendant Team Leader. She retired from her position in October 2020 on her 65th birthday. However, she had not worked in the hospital since 2 April 2020, when she was advised that she was a close contact of a staff member who had tested positive for Covid-19.

The applicant had previously been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer in 2016 and also suffered from diabetes. As such, she argued that she did not wish to physically return to work and wanted to work from home.

A doctor in the hospital’s Occupational Health department deemed the applicant as fit to return to work in the hospital. The doctor took the view that the applicant did not qualify as at “very high risk” from the virus and that she did not need to cocoon.

The hospital argued that it had put in place adequate precautions for employees who had to work in person. The hospital stated that the applicant was only at “high risk” rather than “very high risk” of Covid-19 and therefore was required to attend work.

The applicant filed a grievance with the hospital HR department in July 2020. The applicant complained that the hospital was not complying with HR Circular 34/2020, which she said gave rise to a duty of care. Further, she provided two expert reports which supported her request to work from home.

The applicant and a SIPTU representative met with a hospital representative in October 2020. A month later, the decision-maker wrote to the applicant, stating that there was no suitable, alternative employment available to her during the relevant period. Further, the decision-maker said that the doctor in the Occupational Health department had considered the applicant’s medical reports but did not think that cocooning was warranted.

The decision-maker concluded that the applicant’s health status was “appropriately and professionally reviewed” and the grievance was not upheld. Subsequently, the applicant issued judicial review proceedings against the HSE and the hospital, claiming that the decision was irrational, that she had not been given adequate reasons for the decision and that the hospital failed to comply with HSE requirements.

The respondents defended the proceedings on the basis that the matter related to the private employment dispute and, accordingly, the case was not amenable to judicial review. The respondents also contested the merits of the application and submitted that the hospital was correct to not allow the applicant to work from home.

High Court
The court began by considering whether the case was appropriate for judicial review. The court outlined the well-established principle that private law matters are generally not amenable to judicial review (Beirne v. The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [1993] ILRM; Geoghegan v. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland [1995] 3 IR 86). Ordinarily, a decision-maker must exercise a public statutory function in order for judicial review to apply to their decisions.

The court also considered Bloxham v. Irish Stock Exchange [2013] IEHC 301, and held that: “Judicial review remedies are addressed to persons or bodies who can be held answerable in respect of the performance of their duty or function, the origins of such function, jurisdiction or authority deriving directly or indirectly from the State.”

In O’Donnell v. Tipperary (South Riding) County Council [2005] IESC 18, it was noted that the burden was on a respondent to prove that a case was a private law matter and that a court would exclude judicial review only if the case arose “solely and exclusively from the individual contract and private law.”

Additionally, Ms Justice O’Regan held that the wider consequences of a decision were important factors to be taken into account (Kelly v. Board of Management of St. Joseph’s National School [2013] IEHC 392).

Having considered the case law, the court was satisfied that the matter was not amenable to judicial review. The court held that the case was not a disciplinary matter and clearly related to the individual working conditions of the applicant. The court noted that the employment was governed by contract rather than by statute. As such, the court held that the respondents had discharged the burden of proof that the case related to a private law matter.

The court also went on to consider the merits of the application and held that the applicant would have failed on this issue as well. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a breach of fair procedures. It was appropriate for the hospital to seek the views that it did and the applicant was given an opportunity to present her position on the matter.

Further, the court held that the medical reports relied on by the applicant did not appear to recommend cocooning. The oncological expert stated that the applicant’s exposure to Covid-19 should be minimised and that “everything should be done to avoid possible contact with the virus at work”.

Similarly, the endocrine expert stated that the applicant should “continue to self-isolate as much as possible in order to avoid contact as her immune status is compromised by her condition”.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish that the reports required her to cocoon or self-isolate. Further, the reports did not establish that the applicant was at “very high risk” of Covid-19. Accordingly, the decision of the hospital was not irrational or unreasonable.

Conclusion
The court refused to grant the reliefs sought.

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/high-court-worker-fails-to-quash-hospitals-refusal-to-let-her-to-work-from-home

A man who allegedly presented a fake arm for a Covid-19 vaccination in a bid to get a vaccine passport is facing possible criminal charges.

Anti-vaxxer Guido Russo, a 57-year-old dentist in the northern Italian city of Biella, had previously been suspended from work for failing to get vaccinated.

Regional authorities said he initially tried to fool a nurse with a fully silicone arm, and then tried to convince her to turn a blind eye to it, the Corriere Della Sera reports.

“The case borders on the ridiculous, were it not for the fact that we are talking about a gesture of enormous gravity, unacceptable in the face of the sacrifice that the pandemic is making our entire community pay, in terms of human lives and social and economic costs,” said Alberto Cirio, president of the Piedmont region.

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/and-finally-unarmed-and-dangerous