Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is it PERJURY or what is it?

  • 03-03-2010 9:28pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2


    Hi All,
    I have a question. A truck driver charged with Dangerous Driving causing death. The truck had faulty brakes, Missing and faulty lights, the trailer had no MOT for Ten years and did not conform to regulations. He denied he was responsible for a crash were a life was lost and was acquitted by a jury. The state evidence in the case was not allowed because it was reconstruction evidence. The driver contradicted in court his statement made to the Gardai on the day of the accident and he forcely denied he was responsible for the crash or that he drove a vehicle not road worthy. The family of the deceased person had engaged road accident engineers on the day of the fatal crash and they were advised and fully believed that the lorry driver was responsible and that he had convincingly lied to the jury.

    The family of the deceased took a civil high court action against the driver. The end result being that the truck drivers defence concided liability on behalf of the truck driver.

    So here is my question the truck driver in question having denied he was responsible in the state case and paid no penalty but when faced with evidence in the civil case an admission of liabilty was received.

    What type of charges can now be perfferred against this truck driver to see justice is done?

    Thanks
    Survivor12


Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    survivor12 wrote: »
    What type of charges can now be perfferred against this truck driver to see justice is done?

    Thanks
    Survivor12

    None whatsoever.

    There has been no new finding of fact. You can be negligent and not be criminally liable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    survivor12 wrote: »
    Hi All,
    I have a question. A truck driver charged with Dangerous Driving causing death. The truck had faulty brakes, Missing and faulty lights, the trailer had no MOT for Ten years and did not conform to regulations. He denied he was responsible for a crash were a life was lost and was acquitted by a jury. The state evidence in the case was not allowed because it was reconstruction evidence. The driver contradicted in court his statement made to the Gardai on the day of the accident and he forcely denied he was responsible for the crash or that he drove a vehicle not road worthy. The family of the deceased person had engaged road accident engineers on the day of the fatal crash and they were advised and fully believed that the lorry driver was responsible and that he had convincingly lied to the jury.

    The family of the deceased took a civil high court action against the driver. The end result being that the truck drivers defence concided liability on behalf of the truck driver.

    So here is my question the truck driver in question having denied he was responsible in the state case and paid no penalty but when faced with evidence in the civil case an admission of liabilty was received.

    What type of charges can now be perfferred against this truck driver to see justice is done?

    Thanks
    Survivor12

    I'm not sure why you think this is inconsistent. He denied he was liable (an opinion to which he is fully entitled) and the jury agreed that he was not liable (a finding in the court case).

    Presumably the evidence of the police and the road engineers were taken into account by the jury, along with other evidence, before reaching their decision.

    The criminal action and civil action are independent of each other, and an admission of liability in a civil action is not an admission of criminal negligence in a criminal action.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No remedy. As said above, different forums with different requirements of proof (the prosecution need to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt which is a lot more onerous than civil cases, where case need only be proved on balance of probabilities) and different laws of evidence (much more will be allowed in the civil case).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2 survivor12


    Thanks for the replies. My understanding from the replies is that if someone causes the death of another person and he/she denys they are responsible and gets away with it through lack of evidence on the part of the state. I take it from your answers that this person can then admit he/she was responsible for causing the death of the person in a civil case with no fear of further criminal prosecution.

    Doesnt this sound strange because I would have thought following the admission that this was the new evidence.

    The fact that they are 2 seperate formats does that mean you are allowed to provide 2 different answers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    survivor12 wrote: »
    Thanks for the replies. My understanding from the replies is that if someone causes the death of another person and he/she denys they are responsible and gets away with it through lack of evidence on the part of the state. I take it from your answers that this person can then admit he/she was responsible for causing the death of the person in a civil case with no fear of further criminal prosecution.

    Doesnt this sound strange because I would have thought following the admission that this was the new evidence.

    The fact that they are 2 seperate formats does that mean you are allowed to provide 2 different answers.


    Can you confirm if the civil action was settled or did it go to trial? It would have been more likely that he settled the civil case and if he did so there would have been no admission of liability.

    Presuming he did admit liability (which I can't imagine he would have), this still cannot be used against him in another case as evidence and this is the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn (1943) (which has been seemingly abolished in the UK but not here). Because of this, the fact that he admitted liability in the civil trial is inadmissible as new evidence for another criminal trial.

    Also, see the above regarding the proofs required in civil and criminal trials.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    survivor12 wrote: »
    Thanks for the replies. My understanding from the replies is that if someone causes the death of another person and he/she denys they are responsible and gets away with it through lack of evidence on the part of the state. I take it from your answers that this person can then admit he/she was responsible for causing the death of the person in a civil case with no fear of further criminal prosecution.

    Doesnt this sound strange because I would have thought following the admission that this was the new evidence.

    The fact that they are 2 seperate formats does that mean you are allowed to provide 2 different answers.

    OK I can see why you'd think that but you're wrong.

    A criminal trial requires a MUCH higher standard of proof than a civil trial.

    Also, in order to be "guilty" in a negligence claim you simply have to be that; negligent. Negligence does not mean criminal guilt.

    You might be frustrated by it but remember that this is not a novel situation.

    Let me give you a hypothetical:

    Johnny is driving home one night and is smoking a cigarette in his car. He hiccoughs and the cigarette drops into his lap and he panics and starts trying to get it before it burns him. He doesn't see the other car coming at him and he veers across the road. The other car swerves and crashes, killing the driver.

    Is Johnny guilty of murder? Definitely not.

    Is he negligent and liable in a civil context for wrongful death? Probably, yes.

    Just because he might plead not guilty at the criminal trial does not mean he cannot be found negligent in a civil trial.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Though not exactly a textbook case, and also happened in the US so of little legal relevance, but I guess as far as the public is concerned the distinction was brought into focus in the OJ Simpson case. Not guilty of murder, innocent in that regard. But had to pay in excess of $30m for the civil case of wrongful death.


Advertisement