Criminal Damage/Breach of Peace

griffdaddy

I was arrested last night for these two offences and I've no prior convictions for anything. I was summonsed to appear in court in the next 2 weeks, what kind of punishment should i expect if i plead guilty to both?

Turner

This isnt legal advice now or anything....

Id say you were charged and released on bail, not summonsed.

You will need a solicitor, preferably one that is in the district court every day and knows the judge you have to appear in front of.

Ther criminal damage will only go ahead if the person who owns the property makes a statment and will go to court as a witness.

Breach of the peace is usually used to arrest when not in a public place, similiar to s.24 of the criminal justice public order act. On its own with no previous convictions would be a fine, but coupled with criminal damage its a bit more serious.

If in Dublin - Terence Lyons and Co are prob the most popular solicitors for the district court.

griffdaddy

ok thanks. I'm sure the criminal damage charge will go ahead, the alleged incident took place in relation to a garda's car. I'm pretty sure it's a summons i got, it says to appear at x court on the third of july. I might look those guys up. Would i be entitled to legal aid seeing as I'm a full time third level student and am not in employment? I'm going on Erasmus abroad for a year in august and just wanna get the whole thing sorted out and finished.

Our man in Havana

You can apply for legal aid but it is up to the judge whether you get it or not. Generally it is not granted for summary offences.

Best of luck with it.

Jo King

Legal Aid is often granted for summary offences. It depends on whether the accused is "at risk". A visit to a legal aid solicitor who will make the application of the first appearance in court is a good idea. Besides Terences Lyons & Co, a number of firms are prominent in the Dublin including Michael Staines & Co, Garret Sheehan & Co, Miochael hanahoe & Co, Ferry's, John Feaheny, John Quinn, Rowan Mckeever, Murrough O Rourke , Peter Connolly and Cahir O Higgins. You can explain you position to any of them and they may agree to appear on the first day without payment and gamble on getting legal aid.

griffdaddy

Thanks Bond and Jo. This isn't a request for legal advice, but if i were to plead guilty could I expect the charges to be resolved that day? Also, what kinda of sentences have been handed out in the past for criminal damage? (In this case it would be at the lowest level of damage, i.e. practically none)

Gobán Saor

Chief--- wrote:

You will need a solicitor, preferably one that is in the district court every day...........

You have touched on a very interesting point. There are indeed solicitors who are in the District Court every day. Some of them have built up large legal aid funded practices representing, shall we say, habitual criminals. (OK, then, gougers and scumbags, if you really must:rolleyes: ) They will, in fact, be actively sought out by such clientele and their names are often suggested by the Gardai should the accused fail to nominate a solicitor themselves. They will undoubtedly have vast experience of appearing in minor public order offence cases and will know the judges attitude to such matters. But for the purposes of the OP's query, I would suggest that being represented by a solicitor with this sort of practice is tantamount to being tarred with a very broad brush of general criminality and is unlikely to impress the judge.

johnnyskeleton

Gob&#225 wrote: »

But for the purposes of the OP's query, I would suggest that being represented by a solicitor with this sort of practice is tantamount to being tarred with a very broad brush of general criminality and is unlikely to impress the judge.

Without making any comment towards the original post (I think the mods must be on holidays), are you suggesting that judges infer guilt by association with a solicitor? Anybody who needs legal representation must've done something? The better that solicitor, the more guilty they must be?

Victor

Gob&#225 wrote: »

But for the purposes of the OP's query, I would suggest that being represented by a solicitor with this sort of practice is tantamount to being tarred with a very broad brush of general criminality and is unlikely to impress the judge.

I think you are being unfair to judges and by implication, solicitors and their clients. My sister had to go looking for a solicitor and went to her next door neighbour (who does conveyancing almost exclusively) who told her that she wouldn't be of any use to her and to get someone more suited. Would you go to a heart consultant with a liver problem?

Now there might be some truth to the matter, but seeing as the OP is considering pleading guilty anyway, I think the point is moot.

griffdaddy

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Without making any comment towards the original post (I think the mods must be on holidays),

I'm absolutely and categorically not looking for legal advice here, I already intend to consult a solicitor on Monday or Tuesday morning and then when in court I intend to have the issue resolved as quickly as possible, more than likely by pleading guilty. I was just wondering what kind of punishment I could expect and if pleading guilty generally speeds things up in cases similar to this. I'm not going to act based on what I read here or anything. 'Your Honour, under instruction of the Legal Discussion Forum on Boards.ie I've decided to plead the 5th and apply to be recognised as a woman, oh and I don't recognise the state's court'

Jo King

The guilt by association theory is nonsense. Judges love guilty pleas and encourage them by giving light sentences to the clients of solicitors who appear regularly in their courts.
The experienced practitioners know the guards and the judges. They can often get the guards to agree to drop one charge in return for a guilty plea on another.
They know how to handle the judges, knowing what to say and not to say to each judge.
The possible range of punishment for a minor first offence is a donation to charity and charges struck out up to a suspended custodial sentence or a fine. The accused is visible to the judge and the judge has to hear of his circumstances before he passes sentence so it will pretty quickly emerge whether the accused is an habitual criminal or someone who has slipped up once.

Saruman

What kind of criminal damage are we talking about anyway? Did you get drunk and smash a window or something? Or was it more serious than that? Its probably going to come down to how serious it was and how likely it is to happen again.

griffdaddy

Basically it's alleged that I snapped back the wing mirror of a garda car, not breaking it off or anything but snapped it back with force the way it would snap back if another car's mirror hit it, the arresting gard told me there was very little damage done. I don't really know what the story is with the other charge, presume it's just a little add-on as seems to happen to people charged with minor offences. I'm certain I won't be a repeat offender, and I'm certain I can convey that impression, what matters primarily for me is speedy resolution (as speedy as possible), and secondarily is keeping the fine/suspended sentence/whatever down as much as possible.

Gobán Saor

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Without making any comment towards the original post (I think the mods must be on holidays), are you suggesting that judges infer guilt by association with a solicitor?

Hmmmm, I must have missed that jurisprudence lecture where it was carefully explained that all judges are perfect and infallible human beings who leave their prejudices and experiences outside the courtroom door.:rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

griffdaddy wrote:

the arresting gard told me there was very little damage done.

Very little damage, or no damage?

griffdaddy wrote:

I don't really know what the story is with the other charge, presume it's just a little add-on as seems to happen to people charged with minor offences. I'm certain I won't be a repeat offender, and I'm certain I can convey that impression, what matters primarily for me is speedy resolution (as speedy as possible), and secondarily is keeping the fine/suspended sentence/whatever down as much as possible.

I'm really glad that you're going to a solicitor before you decide to take a course of action.

Gobán Saor

Jo King wrote:

The experienced practitioners know the guards and the judges. .......They know how to handle the judges, knowing what to say and not to say to each judge.

Indeed. Likewise the experienced judge knows the solicitors and the type of client they "specialise" in.

johnnyskeleton

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Hmmmm, I must have missed that jurisprudence lecture where it was carefully explained that all judges are perfect and infallible human beings who leave their prejudices and experiences outside the courtroom door.:rolleyes:

You might also have missed the legal systems lecture that notes that judges are drawn from practising solicitors and barristers.

Gobán Saor

johnnyskeleton wrote:

You might also have missed the legal systems lecture that notes that judges are drawn from practising solicitors and barristers.

.......who will, no doubt, have accumulated plenty of impressions, assumptions and prejudices throughout their many years of practice?

johnnyskeleton

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Indeed. Likewise the experienced judge knows the solicitors and the type of client they "specialise" in.

Are you suggesting that there are some solicitors that you go to only if you are innocent, and others only if you are guilty?

Do you think that if you walked into a solicitor's office and say "Hi, I'm charged with this, but I didn't do it" or "Hi, I'm charged with this, but I'm not a bad guy really" that the solicitor will say "Sorry, I only deal with scumbags. Come back to me when you're a real criminal".

If anything, if a busy solicitor usually represents clients who are, shall we say not the type you'd invite to a dinner party, and they have one person for whom it is their first offence and they're otherwise a good person, would not that one person stick out from all the rest and deserve special treatment?

But in addition to what Jo King says, if a solicitor appears in front of one particular judge day in day out, that judge will get to know and trust that solicitor. Therefore, if that solicitor says that this person is a really good guy, the judge would be, in my view, more likely to believe that coming from a solicitor that he/she knows and trusts over one that they have never seen before.

johnnyskeleton

Gob&#225 wrote: »

.......who will, no doubt, have accumulated plenty of impressions, assumptions and prejudices throughout their many years of practice?

But if they do have those impressions, assumptions and prejudices, they will be against customers generally, not against the customers of any particular solicitor or barrister(unless they are jealous of that practitioner's practice).

Gobán Saor

johnnyskeleton wrote:

But if they do have those impressions, assumptions and prejudices, they will be against customers generally, not against the customers of any particular solicitor or barrister(unless they are jealous of that practitioner's practice).

Well, if they notice that a particular type of client tends to gravitate toward a particular solicitor, I would say that would generate a presumption about any new client of said solicitor. A rebuttable presumption, of course:D

griffdaddy

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Very little damage, or no damage?

He wouldn't say when i asked him. He said 'they were getting a quote.'

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I'm really glad that you're going to a solicitor before you decide to take a course of action.

If there's one thing i know for certain about Irish law, it's that you should always have a solicitor. He who represents himself and all that. Without sounding like a smarmy git or anything, I know I'm not a criminal and I know I'd never do anything to hurt anyone. I was a prefect in school, have many awards for debating at both second and third level and I've won two separate scholarships to two different universities in the Netherlands over the next year. Will the judge take that into account?

griffdaddy

sorry if this is getting a bit too legal advisey, i'll cut it out.

johnnyskeleton

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Well, if they notice that a particular type of client tends to gravitate toward a particular solicitor, I would say that would generate a presumption about any new client of said solicitor. A rebuttable presumption, of course:D

Do you think that some solicitors get a reputation for having clients who are, shall we say, regular customers or perhaps major contractors? It seems to me that solicitors are selected based on:

1) Areas of practise e.g. criminal
2) Competence e.g. how good they are at presenting your case
3) Geographical considerations e.g. different solicitors in different district courts.

If you are to be represented in a criminal court, you will go to a criminal solicitor, usually one that is known to be good rather than one that is known to be bad and usually one that is either near where you live or else near the district court. The suggestion that some solicitors deal with very bad people who should be sent down for the maximum sentence while others have only model citizens who are very promising candidates for rehabilitation doesn't ring true for me. Busy solicitors will get a mixed bag of clients, from the stray sheep to the unrepentant heathons, and a good judge will notice the suble differences in treatment from said busy solicitor when he is dealing with a 1st time minor offence rather than a hardened and indifferent career criminal.

But even if it were true, that a particular solicitor was known for having worse criminals than other solicitors, that solicitor will still represent you to the best of his abilities, perhaps even passionately, because you make a change to his usual clientele, and his usual form 2B plea in mitigation.

griffdaddy wrote:

Will the judge take that into account?

Bending the forum charter almost to breaking point (as is to be expected in a legal forum), you seem to have already decided that you wish to plead guilty. A lawyer's job is to advise you on what course of action to take, and it might be a good idea to visit a solicitor with an open mind as to such questions and see what your options are. Every citizen charged with a criminal offence is perfectly entitled to test the evidence against them, and if a fundamental part of the offence is not present ("harm" in "assault causing harm" "public place" in "disorderly conduct in a public place", etc) then they haven't committed it. The gardai must prove every element of the offence, and if they don't prove that some part of the offence occured then, well...

griffdaddy wrote:

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Very little damage, or no damage?

He wouldn't say when i asked him. He said 'they were getting a quote.'

Interesting....

griffdaddy

With reference to the other discussion going on in this thread, can anyone tell me which solicitor is best to use if you're the innocent, handsome student type?

On a serious note, thanks everyone for your help, particularly Johnnyskeleton and the guys who suggested specific solicitors. I've had more or less all my (pre-solicitor) questions answered, I never realised how useful this forum could be as a precursor to consulting a professional solicitor. Is there a huge variation in the prices between solicitors or are they all similarly priced?

Jo King

If you are not working you may be entitled to Free Legal Aid. The solicitors who are in the courts all day are cheaper than the ones who come in to do only one case. It is basic economics. Some of them deal with up to 15 cases in a day. The extra work of dealing with another case is relatively small. Probably an hours work in cases of your type. If a solicitor has to travel and then hang around waiting for the case to be called on it could be up to six hours work.
Good on mitigation pleas in the Bridewell are Michael Hanahoe and Murrough O Rourke. On overall technical legal advice Garrett Sheehan, Lyons, Staines and Ferrys and Fahy McGeever are very good and efficient.
Your background and previous history will be taken into account,

missymoo2009

im the same as you wats max u can get for first time offence please my partner had a guard call today over a little fire in our own porch. weve a young child and id really appreciate someone giving me an indication at wat were looking at and wats ahead of us please. Thank you :mad:

445279.ie

I'm surprised you didn't get an Adult Caution in the station

impr0v

griffdaddy wrote: »

He wouldn't say when i asked him. He said 'they were getting a quote.'

If the Garda, when charging you with criminal damage, couldn't specify the criminal damage that you'd done then there are all kind of points that could potentially be made about the validity of your arrest and their bringing that charge. They may not be successful, but there's certainly scope there.

***********
Disclaimer:
THE ABOVE IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, RELY UPON IT AT YOUR PERIL.
***********

griffdaddy

impr0v wrote: »

If the Garda, when charging you with criminal damage, couldn't specify the criminal damage that you'd done then there are all kind of points that could potentially be made about the validity of your arrest and their bringing that charge. They may not be successful, but there's certainly scope there.

***********
Disclaimer:
THE ABOVE IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, RELY UPON IT AT YOUR PERIL.
***********

This was the result. (The case is long over) There was zero damage done and the other charge occurred after that one so they were dropped as well, also the guard was trying to insinuate that the breach of the peace offence occurred in a public place, whereas it happened in a Garda Station, which the judge responded to as ridiculous, because a garda station is designed by its very nature for such occurrences. To the person who brought this thread up again, go and see a solicitor, it really is the best course of action. I'm sure you won't be in too much trouble anyway.

murrayp4

445279.ie wrote: »

I'm surprised you didn't get an Adult Caution in the station

me too