in an assault case with no neutral witness and no marks....

AMY1978

... is there no legal recourse for the victim of the assault? If the victim was namecalling, shouting at the person who then assaulted her is that person then no accountable for the assault because of provocation or something?

Very briefly...a child was terrorised (verbally)by a grown man in the pitch dark. Mother spends hours over the phone (because she was in work and child was in grandparents house at the time) trying to comfort the child and make her feel safe. The following day the mother goes to the grandparents house and confronts the neighbour from the roadside outside his house. She shouts and namecalls and says there will be trouble if he ever terrifies her child again (knowing he has threatened and terrified her mother and the same child before and that the child is supposed to be staying for another few days). He runs down his garden, jumps over his wall and threatens her life with a sharp gardening tool. He uses the full of his hand and thuds her across the face, knocking her sideways (she didn't fall) and stunning her for a few seconds. He continues to threaten her with the tool as she is yelling stop and backing away. She retreats to her mothers house and calls the police. Police take statements and warn both to keep the peace and inform the victim of the assault that the other party is counter claiming for something but won't say. There were two witness on each side and then the child who didn't see the slap on the head but witnessed the tool being waved about.

So because their is no neutral witness and no visible marks on the womans face or head is it just a 'he said. she said'. Can someone just continue to get away with being threatening and violent forever more because he knows nothing can be proven?

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

johnnyskeleton

If it is felt that the Gardai should have done more, speak to a local sergeant / inspector and if no satisfaction from them, make a complaint to the garda ombusdman's office.

Failing that, go to a solicitor.

AMY1978

Thanks Johnny. The garda said all statements would be going to his superintendant who would then make a decision as to whether it would go to court or not. What I don't understand is, even though the woman began shouting and threatening him if he did it again she should surely still have the right to have him charged for assault. I wish there were lie detector thingys in ireland. He is obviously saying he felt threatened and he didn't mention anything about hitting the woman or threatening her so it will all just be a 'tit for tat' thing. How can a garda or a judge resolve that. It's bloody awful.

MagicMarker

Lie detectors are not used because they are not 100% accurate.

johnnyskeleton

AMY1978 wrote: »

Thanks Johnny. The garda said all statements would be going to his superintendant who would then make a decision as to whether it would go to court or not. What I don't understand is, even though the woman began shouting and threatening him if he did it again she should surely still have the right to have him charged for assault.

I suppose they don't want to be jumping the gun. If it is as you described then it could be a serious offence to be tried on indictment, in which case a file will have to be prepared for the DPP. These investigations take time.

AMY1978 wrote: »

I wish there were lie detector thingys in ireland.

They don't work. We have judges and juries instead.

AMY1978 wrote: »

He is obviously saying he felt threatened and he didn't mention anything about hitting the woman or threatening her so it will all just be a 'tit for tat' thing. How can a garda or a judge resolve that. It's bloody awful.

Gardai don't resolve it. They ask the director of public prosecutions who will decide if there is a credible complaint. You might not want to hear this, but the DPP is grossly underfunded at the moment, and so might not prosecute if he feels that it was a once off incident between neighbours which won't be repeated.

A judge/jury will resolve it the only way they know how - by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

amdublin

Sorry to hear about this traumatic situation.

Suggest child avoids neighbour.
Suggest mother avoids neighbour.
Suggests grandparents avoid neighbour.

Will prosecuting neighbour really make this situation any better?

metrovelvet

Is there any plausible way of lying to this man and convince him you have cctv footage of this and say you'll submit it to the police if he does this again?

amdublin

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is there any plausible way of lying to this man and convince him you have cctv footage of this and say you'll submit it to the police if he does this again?

If this whole assault/neighbours argument thingy ever gets to court I don't think this will go down well.

I do not think this is a good thing to suggest on a Legal Discussion forum/thread.

metrovelvet

Yeah fair enough. In the back of my mind i was assuming it wouldn't go to court because no witnesses or medical evidence.

AMY1978

Sorry for the delay in replying, I lost internet connection.

I don't know how to reference each of your post but thank you all for you replies.

I know about the lie detector thing it's just soul destroying to know you are telling the truth but you can't prove it. It's soul destroying to know he may very well get away with it because there isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

He knows there is no cctv and in fact it was him who recorded on a mobile phone the womans shouting so again it seems futile. She was in shock and distraught and humiliated screaming infront of him while he recorded it all. You know how that will look to someone seeing it as the only piece of 'concrete' evidence. Though the woman was so scared she was going to be stabbed she lost control of her bowels and the unfortunate garda had to bare witness to that as photos where taken.

metrovelvet

But isnt that evidence of causing distress?

amdublin

Oh the poor woman. I can only imagine how scary it was for her.

AMY1978 wrote: »

... Can someone just continue to get away with being threatening and violent forever more because he knows nothing can be proven?

Not if everyone makes it their business to avoid interaction with this person.

My advice would be steer well clear.

AMY1978

I really don't know. I'm very afraid of saying to much here either. I have to try and stay within the forum guidelines.

I suppose one of the body's responses during such a situation would be bowel incontinence. I don't know, I'm so stressed.

I have a healthy respect for the law and the justice system, it is there for all our sakes. I can't say I'm mad with the system because he will get away with it, I'm just mad it has to be that way. It's so unfair, he's too clever. It's a rural setting on a back road, he knew he could do it.:(

AMY1978

Thanks AM.

It's not practical I'm afraid. He is the next house down and not another occupied house in site (though there are some but not visible) This is going on two years. The grandmother goes out most of the day with her dogs in case they bark and at night she brings them on the lead to the other side of the house for the same reason. She won't open a window if she has the radio on in case he comes out, she drives into her drive barely moving in case the gravel sound annoys him. He's serious. He lives with a woman too who witnessed all this and knows his history (can't say) and yet she still stood by him and denied he did anything. How can another woman have that in her head and defend him.

Thanks for all your replies.

Bosco boy

There's a good chance the case will go to court if statements have been made, the guy who hit her is likely to be done for section 2 assault and it's possible she could be done for sec 6 of the public order act. (threatening behaviour) for her contribution, it all depends on what's in the statements, after that it's up to the judge

AMY1978

Hi Bosco,

Can you give any further information regarding those two sections and within what limits the ramifications are?

She could loose her job with a conviction.

Bosco boy

AMY1978 wrote: »

Hi Bosco,

Can you give any further information regarding those two sections and within what limits the ramifications are?

She could loose her job with a conviction.

section 2 of the non fatal offences against the person act 1997

and section 6 of the public order act 1994, the time limit for issuing a summons is within 6 months, if you google them you should get loads if info