‘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
Sunday World
a day ago
- Sunday World
Wicklow man found with €250k worth of cocaine and heroin jailed
The total value of all the drugs found in the taxi and in Graham Anderson's home came to €244,331 including cocaine worth €130,271 and heroin worth €93,834. A Greystones man found in possession of almost €250,000 worth of drugs last year has been jailed for four and a half years. Graham Anderson (40) of Charlesland Grove, Greystones, Co Wicklow pleaded guilty at a sitting of Wicklow Circuit Criminal Court to two charges of the possession of drugs for sales and supply on June 13, 2024. Detective Sergeant Gerard Brennan gave evidence that a taxi in which the accused was a passenger was stopped by gardaí as part of an investigation where Anderson had been identified as a 'person of interest' by the local drugs detective unit. The court heard a quantity of cocaine and heroin as well as just over €1,000 in cash was found in a backpack in the possession of Anderson in the vehicle. Cocaine. Stock image News in 90 Seconds - Saturday, August 2 Det Sgt Brennan said further large quantities of various drugs were discovered in a follow-up search of the defendant's home as well as material for bulking up of cocaine, weighing scales and further cash to the amount of €11,800. Evidence was provided that the total value of all the drugs found in the taxi and in Anderson's home came to €244,331 including cocaine worth €130,271 and heroin worth €93,834. The garda witness told prosecution counsel, James Kelly BL, that Anderson made full and frank admissions in the second of two interviews after his arrest and identified what the drugs were before they were tested. However, Det Sgt Brennan said Anderson had been under instructions to deliver the drugs to unnamed third parties. The court heard that the accused had 20 previous convictions, the majority of which were for road traffic offences. Asked by Judge John Martin if there were any trappings of wealth in Anderson's home, Det Sgt Brennan replied that there was 'nothing out of the ordinary.' Under cross-examination by defence counsel, Colman FitzGerald SC, he agreed that Anderson had cooperated with gardaí but had not named 'anyone above or below in the operation.' Det Sgt Brennan said the accused appeared to fall in and out of cocaine use but would have 'a very heavy fall when he does.' The court heard that Anderson has been in custody since January 2025 and is housed on a drugs-free landing in prison. Judge Martin said having drugs for sale or supply was a very serious offence and the amount of drugs in Anderson's possession placed it at the high end of offending. The judge acknowledged that the accused's 'valiant efforts' at rehabilitation had 'watered down' the sentence he had intended to impose. At the same time, he noted that Anderson was 'an essential cog in the wheel' of the drugs trade which was a scourge on society. Sentencing the accused to six years in prison, Judge Martin suspended the final 18 months for a period of two and a half years on condition that on his release he places himself under the supervision of the Probation Service for the duration. He also directed that Anderson should attend all recommended addiction treatment services and to provide clear drug urine tests when requested. The judge backdated the sentence to when the defendant was first placed in custody six months ago.
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.
