What the Garda Found Is the One Thing Missing From the Charge Before a Garda can put his judgment of a person's conduct on a charge sheet, that conduct must first enter his eyes and ears. The law itself says so. Section 24(1) of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 provides that where a member "finds any person committing" an offence, he may arrest that person without warrant. Finds them committing it. Not suspects. Not believes. The conduct must be happening in front of him. Subsection (2) is different. Where a member "is of the opinion that an offence has been committed", he may only demand a name and address. The Oireachtas drew a clear line. Observed conduct carries the full power of arrest. Opinion alone does not. Think about what must happen inside a Garda's mind for a lawful arrest under subsection (1). First, perception: he sees or hears what the person actually says and does. Second, recognition: he identifies those particular words or acts. Third, comparison: he holds them up against each element of the offence, for section 6 a public place, words or behaviour, threatening, abusive or insulting, intent or recklessness. Fourth, conclusion: he decides they fit. Only then can he arrest. Every step before the last involves facts he possesses at that moment. The conclusion is built on them and cannot exist without them. Yet when the charge sheet is typed into the PULSE system, it routinely records only the last step, in the pre-approved offence wording of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The perception, the recognition and the comparison, the very things that made the arrest lawful, are left off. Order 17, rule 1(1) of the District Court Rules requires "particulars of the offence alleged" to be set out on the charge sheet. The particulars are what the Garda found. Without them, neither the accused nor the court can know what a person was arrested for, only what it was called. #FundamentalRightsMatter #NoFeeOnStateGuarantee #OpenJustice