Self Incrimination

JohnK

If a person admits to something, could the police/dpp etc bring charges even if there was no evidence other than the persons own admission of the crime? Does it matter how or where the admission was made?

I was just wondering in relation to celebrities and politicians and the like who've come out in the press or interviews saying they did various types of drugs in their past. While I'm sure in general the local police would have no interest in doing so, could they turn around and arrest/charge the person or can they do anything? Is it just a case that it wouldn't be deemed in the public interest to do so or too much time has elapsed that sort of thing?

TheNog

JohnK wrote: »

If a person admits to something, could the police/dpp etc bring charges even if there was no evidence other than the persons own admission of the crime?

That would probably be a very sticky one. I couldnt see how the DPP would go for a prosecution if there was no evidence other than a persons own admission. It was to be that way every nut in the country would be behind bars.

JohnK wrote: »

Does it matter how or where the admission was made?

A cautioned statement can be taken anywhere. It doesnt necessarily have to be done in a Garda Station. However the more serious crimes committed would result in a person being arrested and interviewed but again all the facts would have to be established first before this happens.

If a person admitted to committing a crime to a Garda they would have to be cautioned either before the admission or immediately after (better to do it sooner rather than later). Admissions can be made orally or in writing by either the offender or his/her solicitor.

JohnK wrote: »

I was just wondering in relation to celebrities and politicians and the like who've come out in the press or interviews saying they did various types of drugs in their past. While I'm sure in general the local police would have no interest in doing so, could they turn around and arrest/charge the person or can they do anything?

No. A investigation would need to be carried out first to establish the facts first.

JohnK wrote: »

Is it just a case that it wouldn't be deemed in the public interest to do so or

No policitions, celebrities can and have been brought to court and prosecuted.

JohnK wrote: »

too much time has elapsed that sort of thing?

Summary offences do have a time limit on them. Most traffic offences are summary and proceedings have to be commenced within 6 months. The more serious crimes such as murder have no time constraints.

JohnK

Thanks TheNog

TheNog wrote: »

No policitions, celebrities can and have been brought to court and prosecuted.

Oh I know that I was just wondering if it'd be a case where they might say something like "well we could spend time and resources investigating senator Bob for smoking a few joints in college but lets spend our time on that serial killer instead..." sort of thing.

Stabshauptmann

I thought I remembered something like it was a crime to alleged to have committed a crime. Im almost sure saying you are a member of a proscibed organisation is a crime, whether you are or not.