‘You can't shame them, they have no shame' – CCTV cameras in Wexford unlikely to deter illegal dumpers
'We might as well put up Big Ben and start ringing it to tell people there's a camera in the area,' he noted.
Environmental engineer Enda Brennan explained that, under the 2018 Data Protection Act, you had to follow certain procedures when placing CCTV cameras in public.
'It'll be like the speed vans, you put up two signs informing people there are cameras in this location,' he said.
'This is favouring the person breaking the rules and regulations, we might as well not do anything,' replied Cllr Kavanagh. 'They'll just move elsewhere. We're making life easy for them.'
He received the support of Cllr Darragh McDonald who urged Mr Brennan to 'name and shame' anyone found guilty of illegal dumping.
'Those names should be published. Is it legal for us to name them?' he asked. 'We know if there's a reporter in the court they can publish it in the paper, but we surely have a list of successful prosecutions? Can we have a record of this on the council website? So that it's there for everyone to see.
'This is an epidemic, people are dumping everywhere.'
Cllr Mary Farrell answered the question on Mr Brennan's behalf.
'We were told previously that the only person who can report on fines issued in court is the court reporter. But if people are out there destroying our countryside we should be able to name and shame them,' she said.
While naming offenders was one thing, Cllr Anthony Donohue said shaming them would be a far greater challenge.
'You can't shame them because they don't have any shame,' he said.
All the councillors were having issues with the protocols and procedures involved in erecting these cameras.
'There are cameras up on buildings in every town and village in the county,' said Cllr Oliver Walsh. 'There's nothing being done about them, but we can't put up a camera to record someone dumping.'
'Can dashcam footage be used to prosecute fly-tipping if you happen to come across someone doing it?' asked Cllr Pip Breen.
Again, Cllr Farrell provided the answer.
'You have to be prepared to go to court and that's what's stopping people, they don't want to appear,' she said.
Prior to becoming district manager of the GKMD, Philip Knight had worked in the council's environmental section and he said everything changed in the wake of the enactment of the Data Protection Act.
'We had been using CCTV and it had been very successful when I was in the environment section (prior to 2018) and we were taking a lot of cases to court based on CCTV evidence,' he said. 'Provision is going to be given to us to use mobile CCTV units rather than fixed, but if someone is determined to dump waste they will find somewhere to do it.
"It's very frustrating, when we started sending crews to go through the rubbish in 14 per cent of the cases they found something which could be used in court, that has now dropped to less than one per cent.'
All of those present had been sent images of illegal dumping during their time as elected representatives, however, it was down to the council staff to respond to those reports; an unenviable task by all accounts.
'I wouldn't like their job to have to pick it up, to go through it trying to find a name,' said Cllr Kavanagh, 'it's stomach churning even having to go near it.'
Willing to get the ball rolling on identifying potential criminals, Cllr McDonald said houses 'without bins' were arguably the best place to start.
Funded by the Local Democracy Scheme
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
14-07-2025
- RTÉ News
TikTok granted permission to challenge €530m DPC fine
Social media giant TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to pursue a legal challenge against what it argues is the "penal" €530 million fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site last April, for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530M fine, the April 30 censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. At the High Court today, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of April 30, 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court today on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted that the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made their decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says that the Ireland and UK arms are "joint controllers" for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but add that TikTok UK is "the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision". Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits that the imposition of "administrative" fines of €485M and €45M "constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal". TikTok contends that "even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution". Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims that the fines "cannot be said to be of a limited nature". TikTok submits that the ECHR provides that "in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law". The applicants further claim that the fine "constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution". "The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property," TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October.
Irish Examiner
14-07-2025
- Irish Examiner
TikTok given High Court permission to challenge €530m fine over transfer of personal data to China
Social media giant TikTok has been granted permission by the High Court to mount a legal challenge against what it argues is the "penal" €530m fine imposed upon it by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) over the alleged transfer of site-users' personal data to China. The fine was imposed on the video-sharing site last April, for what the DPC described as an infringement on data protection regarding its transfers of European users' data to The People's Republic of China via remote access to data stored in the US and Singapore by personnel based in China. In addition to the €530m fine, the April 30 censure also included an order suspending TikTok's transfer of data to China if its processing was not brought into compliance with European directives on transparency within six months. At the High Court on Monday, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted permission for TikTok to pursue a legal challenge against the DPC decisions and put a stay on them pending the outcome of the legal review. The High Court action is being taken by TikTok Technology Limited, with an address at The Sorting Office, Ropemaker Place, Dublin 2, and by TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, Kaleidoscope, Lindsey Street, London, UK, against the DPC, Ireland and the Attorney General. TikTok Ireland is a private company limited by shares incorporated in the Republic of Ireland and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. Both TikTok entities seek the quashing of the decision of the DPC of April 30, 2025. Lawyers for the applicants appeared in the High Court on an ex parte basis, where only one side is represented. They submitted the sections of the Data Protection Act under which the DPC made its decision are invalid when viewed in relation to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In papers lodged to the High Court, TikTok says the Ireland and UK arms are "joint controllers" for the processing of personal data of users based in Europe but adds TikTok UK is "the entity that will ultimately bear the cost of the administration fines imposed in the decision". Ireland and the Attorney General are joined as respondents to the proceedings. TikTok submits the imposition of "administrative" fines of €485m and €45m 'constitutes the imposition of a sanction that in its nature and severity is properly characterised as 'criminal' or penal'. TikTok contends that 'even if the imposition of the fine did not constitute a sanction of a criminal nature, the DPC was nonetheless not exercising merely limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37.1 of the Constitution'. Article 37.1 aims to validate the delegation of certain judicial powers to administrative bodies without infringing on the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in criminal matters. TikTok claims the fines 'cannot be said to be of a limited nature'. TikTok submits the ECHR provides that 'in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law'. The applicants further claim the fine 'constitutes an interference with the applicants' right to private property protected under Article 40.3 or 43, or both, of the Constitution". 'The decision to impose a fine, the amount of the fine and the absence of a full right of appeal constitutes an unjust, unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to private property," TikTok claims. Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the judicial review and adjourned the matter to October.
Sunday World
14-07-2025
- Sunday World
Brother who sexually abused his three sisters while becoming priest jailed
Richard Brennan (64) was between 17 and 24 years old at time of the offending. Richard Brennan (64) previously of Rathfarnham, now living in the United States, pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to 24 counts against his three sisters, including 18 of indecent assault and six charges of rape. He entered the guilty pleas after each of the three women had given evidence before a jury and before the final woman was about to be cross-examined. He pleaded guilty to four sample charges of indecent assault and four rape charges against Paula Faye on dates between January 1978 and December 1981 when she was aged between 13 and 17 years old. Richard Brennan. Pic: Brennan also pleaded guilty to 13 sample incidences of indecent assault and two charges of rape against a second sister, Catherine Wrightstone, on dates between June 1980 and December 1984 while she was aged between nine and 14 years old. He finally pleaded guilty to indecent against the oldest of the sisters, Yvonne Crist, when she was about 20 years old on dates between June 1979 and June 1980. Brennan was between 17 and 24 years old at time of the offending. Brennan has no previous convictions. He was ordained as a priest in 1989 and moved to the US, but later married and had a family. He returned from the US for questioning and the trial. Earlier this month, another brother Bernard Brennan, (67), formerly of Rathfarnham, Dublin, but most recently residing in the United States, was jailed for four and half years after he admitted to sexual abuse of both Yvonne Crist and Paula Faye. Richard Brennan pictured at the Criminal Courts of Justice (CCJ). Pic: News in 90 Seconds - Monday July 14th Bernard Brennan pleaded guilty to 11 counts of indecent assault in various locations within the State between 1972 and 1975. He has no previous convictions. Sentencing Richard Brennan today Mr Justice David Keane said it was heartening to hear the three women in victim impact statement describe themselves as survivors. The judge said the sisters had made the 'truly courageous' decision to report their brother's crimes to the gardaí. Mr Justice Keane said he had the most 'immense admiration' for the determination shown by the three women in bringing the case before the courts and hoped that they would get something from their brother's 'belated acceptances of guilt'. He wished them well for the future. Mr Justice Keane said the aggravating features of the case included the particularly young ages of both Ms Faye and Ms Wrightstone at the time of the abuse against them and the fact that the abuse occurred in a place where the sisters should have felt secure. Instead, Brennan created an environment of fear and confusion, he said. The judge also took into account the fact that there was a pattern of frequent assaults against the younger two sisters over a lengthy period of time and that Brennan was a seminarian at the time, with particular familial responsibilities to his younger sisters. Finally, Mr Justice Keane said there were three separate victims in the case who each have been psychologically damaged and that Brennan caused each of them significant harm. He set headline sentences of 12 years for the rapes committed against Ms Wrightstone, and headline sentences of 10 years for the rapes committed against Ms Faye. He set headline sentences of six years against the indecent assaults against Ms Wrightstone and headline sentences of 21 months and 18 months for the indecent assaults against Ms Faye and Ms Crist. Mr Justice Keane said he must take into consideration mitigation including what he said was a late plea entered on the ninth day of the trial. He acknowledged that Brennan has shown deep remorse and that he has apologised to each of his victim. Read more He said Brennan was also entitled to significant credit for his lack of previous convictions and the fact that he co-operated with gardaí. Mr Justice Keane said he accepted evidence that Brennan appears to have been present during some incidences of abuse carried out by his brother Bernard Brennan on both Ms Faye and Ms Crist. He said he was also taking into account the character evidence given during the sentence hearing by Brennan's wife and testimonials handed into court by a number of other people. Mr Justice Keane imposed a term of nine years for the rape offences carried out by Brennan against Ms Wrightstone. He imposed concurrent terms of seven and half years for the rape offences committed against Ms Faye and four and half years for the indecent assaults against Ms Wrightstone. He imposed further concurrent terms of 16 months and 14 months for the indecent assault offences committed against Ms Faye and Ms Crist. A global sentence of nine years was backdated to March 18 last when Brennan first went into custody. Mr Justice Keane noted that a report from the Probation Service indicated that Brennan is willing to engage with offence focused work as deemed suitable by them and said he must 'consider the prospect of rehabilitation' upon his ultimate release from prison. He suspended the final 12 months of the nine-year term on condition that Brennan engage with the Probation Service for a year upon his release. He did not impose a post release supervision order after acknowledging that Brennan intends to return to the States when he leaves Ireland.
