What are the laws regarding taking police statements from children

pirelli

Are there laws or even guidelines in Ireland which compel An Garda to have an adult present when taking a full written witness statement being prepared for court from a child of 14 or under.

When taking a full written witness statement being prepared for court from vulnerable persons such as those who are clearly mentally ill or in the case of an very old person who is suffering senile dementia do such people have the right or require to have a relative or guardian present.

Do The An Garda have to indicate to the defendant or his solictor that a witness statement is from a child or mentally ill person. I would imagine it would be helpful if the defence knew a witness statement was from a child or mentally ill person at the earliest possible stage.

source

pirelli wrote: »

Are there laws or even guidelines in Ireland which compel An Garda to have an adult present when taking a full written witness statement being prepared for court from a child of 14 or under.

When taking a full written witness statement being prepared for court from vulnerable persons such as those who are clearly mentally ill or in the case of an very old person who is suffering senile dementia do such people have the right or require to have a relative or guardian present.

Do The An Garda have to indicate to the defendant or his solictor that a witness statement is from a child or mentally ill person. I would imagine it would be helpful if the defence knew a witness statement was from a child or mentally ill person at the earliest possible stage.

There's a whole program where members are trained as specialist interviewers, for interviewing children and mentally ill people.

An adult does have to be present, but that adult doesn't have to be a parent or guardian. It can be a peace commissioner, relative, social worker etc, also the adult is not permitted to take part or prompt the child, they are there as an observer to ensure the child is treated correctly, and that the child's story is correctly recorded.

pirelli

source wrote: »

There's a whole program where members are trained as specialist interviewers, for interviewing children and mentally ill people.

An adult does have to be present, but that adult doesn't have to be a parent or guardian. It can be a peace commissioner, relative, social worker etc, also the adult is not permitted to take part or prompt the child, they are there as an observer to ensure the child is treated correctly, and that the child's story is correctly recorded.

For a mentally ill or person suffering senile dementia is this the same?

I have read the criminal evidence act and so far can find no law prohibiting the taking of a full written witness statement for court from such person without an an adult/guardian/social worker person present.

Would a statement be inadmissible if it was taken without regard to an adult being present or if the police did not inform the defendant of the age or vulnerability of the witness after the documents were submitted to court.

ResearchWill

pirelli wrote: »

For a mentally ill or person suffering senile dementia is this the same?

I have read the criminal evidence act and so far can find no law prohibiting the taking of a full written witness statement for court from such person without an an adult/guardian/social worker person present.

Would a statement be inadmissible if it was taken without regard to an adult being present or if the police did not inform the defendant of the age or vulnerability of the witness after the documents were submitted to court.

Just to clarify, a witness statement is rarely given in evidence in court (and then only in very clear circumstances, where the person cannot or will not give evidence or where the statement and evidence are st odds), the witness must actually give verbal evidence in court. There are rules about minors giving evidence.

So if a statement from a witness was taken incorrectly, as long as the person is able to give evidence in court there should be no issue.

pirelli

ResearchWill wrote: »

Just to clarify, a witness statement is rarely given in evidence in court (and then only in very clear circumstances, where the person cannot or will not give evidence or where the statement and evidence are st odds), the witness must actually give verbal evidence in court. There are rules about minors giving evidence.

So if a statement from a witness was taken incorrectly, as long as the person is able to give evidence in court there should be no issue.

Is there any act of law pertaining to minors or mentally ill person giving written statements. It is not so much that it is a bridge that can be crossed at trial.

Supposing there was no trial and due to the statements the defence agree to closure of the case and subsequently it was later discovered witness statements tendered to defence were given by a child and or mentally ill person and this was not disclosed to the defence and nor was a guardian present when statements taken putting the defence at a serious loss.

Could the defence then appeal using this as newly discovered evidence.

ResearchWill

pirelli wrote: »

Is there any act of law pertaining to minors or mentally ill person giving written statements. It is not so much that it is a bridge that can be crossed at trial.

Supposing there was no trial and due to the statements the defence agree to closure of the case and subsequently it was later discovered witness statements tendered to defence were given by a child and or mentally ill person and this was not disclosed to the defence and nor was a guardian present when statements taken putting the defence at a serious loss.

Could the defence then appeal using this as newly discovered evidence.

What do you mean the defence agree to the closure of the case?

ResearchWill

ResearchWill wrote: »

What do you mean the defence agree to the closure of the case?

Plead guilty I'd imagine although it's a pretty moot point as you wouldn't advise someone to plead guilty who was not guilty on the basis that the evidence given is too good but if it was just given by a minor or someone with reduced mental faculties, oh boy, we'd be fighting that case!

ResearchWill

Deleted User wrote: »

Plead guilty I'd imagine although it's a pretty moot point as you wouldn't advise someone to plead guilty who was not guilty on the basis that the evidence given is too good but if it was just given by a minor or someone with reduced mental faculties, oh boy, we'd be fighting that case!

I don't see why a person would fight a case just on the basis that the evidence is given by a child. Many if not all child abuse cases only have the evidence of children and or adults with in some cases serious mental health issues, just so I am clear, I am of course referring to mental health issues brought on by the abuse.

If a child has made a statement the legal people will know the fact that the witness is a child and will deal with that statement on that basis. The issue of an adult with mental health or learning issues is very different as that fact may not be obvious to anyone.

pirelli

ResearchWill wrote: »

I don't see why a person would fight a case just on the basis that the evidence is given by a child. Many if not all child abuse cases only have the evidence of children and or adults with in some cases serious mental health issues, just so I am clear, I am of course referring to mental health issues brought on by the abuse.

If a child has made a statement the legal people will know the fact that the witness is a child and will deal with that statement on that basis. The issue of an adult with mental health or learning issues is very different as that fact may not be obvious to anyone.

Yes. Plea guilty.

Well, At the very least they are hardly going to plead guilty to child abuse if the supposed victim was 50 years old who made the statement.

However they might not be so happy if the reverse was to happen! What if the legal people do not know the witness is a child. A statement by a child in the old days required corroboration. Before the 1992 Criminal evidence act a jury would be advised on the cautious nature of a child's evidence if uncorroborated. In fact a Judge might even interview a child before trial to try gauge the child's mental capacity.

Once again I apologise but as with most of my legal enquiries they are set in the 1990's. So while such a tradition of corroboration might not exist in the minds of a modern legal professional it would have been very relevant to pay more attention to the validity or at least treat a statement differently in 1990's if it was from a child making it imperative the prosecution disclose this fact.

But what has changed ?? That is what makes this question is so relevant, even today i am sure a statement by a child or mentally ill person must be disclosed as such to the defence, particularly a statement from a child.

Therefore to deny the defence the right to corroborate not only a witness statement that is from a child but another from a mentally ill person then surely ther has been foul play by the prosecution.

So would it not be a newly discovered fact in a late appeal if after the conviction the defendant finds out the statements were from a child and mentally ill person.

What sometimes people don't understand about late appeals, even if the police lie and perjurer false facts in forensics!!! forcing the defendant into making a plea which can be more sensible.Once the 14 days has expired in order to appeal that conviction you can not argue anything that could have been argued at trial. That unfortunately goes double for forensics. So while we frown on miscarriages of justice, a real miscarriage of justice can be carried off by the state in a lawful manner no matter how atrocious we find it

Therefore you are left with a criminal appeal court that views evidence you submit in a very unusual way. So you have to find the legal facts which fit their very narrow definition of a newly discovered fact.

Hence this is why my enquiries demand so much legal creativity, thinking you might say outside the box or inside the narrow mind of the court of criminal appeal.

So later you discover the statement is a lie, the criminal court of appeal then says:' 'so what' you could have argued that at trial', hence my question could you then argue that this right was denied and that traditionally the evidence of a child was treated so cautiously and sometimes requiring corroboration pre trial that by not disclosing this fact to the defence this give a greater significance to such an extent that the witness statement now being found to be a false commission/untrue automatically makes it a newly discovered fact of evidence.

ResearchWill

pirelli wrote: »

Yes. Plea guilty.

Well, At the very least they are hardly going to plead guilty to child abuse if the supposed victim was 50 years old who made the statement.

However they might not be so happy if the reverse was to happen! What if the legal people do not know the witness is a child. A statement by a child in the old days required corroboration. Before the 1992 Criminal evidence act a jury would be advised on the cautious nature of a child's evidence if uncorroborated. In fact a Judge might even interview a child before trial to try gauge the child's mental capacity.

Once again I apologise but as with most of my legal enquiries they are set in the 1990's. So while such a tradition of corroboration might not exist in the minds of a modern legal professional it would have been very relevant to pay more attention to the validity or at least treat a statement differently in 1990's if it was from a child making it imperative the prosecution disclose this fact.

But what has changed ?? That is what makes this question is so relevant, even today i am sure a statement by a child or mentally ill person must be disclosed as such to the defence, particularly a statement from a child.

Therefore to deny the defence the right to corroborate not only a witness statement that is from a child but another from a mentally ill person then surely ther has been foul play by the prosecution.

So would it not be a newly discovered fact in a late appeal if after the conviction the defendant finds out the statements were from a child and mentally ill person.

What sometimes people don't understand about late appeals, even if the police lie and perjurer false facts in forensics!!! forcing the defendant into making a plea which can be more sensible.Once the 14 days has expired in order to appeal that conviction you can not argue anything that could have been argued at trial. That unfortunately goes double for forensics. So while we frown on miscarriages of justice, a real miscarriage of justice can be carried off by the state in a lawful manner no matter how atrocious we find it

Therefore you are left with a criminal appeal court that views evidence you submit in a very unusual way. So you have to find the legal facts which fit their very narrow definition of a newly discovered fact.

Hence this is why my enquiries demand so much legal creativity, thinking you might say outside the box or inside the narrow mind of the court of criminal appeal.

So later you discover the statement is a lie, the criminal court of appeal then says:' 'so what' you could have argued that at trial', hence my question could you then argue that this right was denied and that traditionally the evidence of a child was treated so cautiously and sometimes requiring corroboration pre trial that by not disclosing this fact to the defence this give a greater significance to such an extent that the witness statement now being found to be a false commission/untrue automatically makes it a newly discovered fact of evidence.

Well many cases of child abuse the victim is 50, the event may have happened 40 years ago but the statement can be from an adult.

You talk about evidence to corroborate the child's evidence, well it will be clear in say a case today where the victim is a child that the person is a minor and the need to corroborate may apply.

If a case happened 40 years ago when the victim was 10, but the complaint is now I don't see the same need to corroborate. As it is an adult.

But getting to your point if a person pleads guilty, based on an outright lie, by the prosecution, yes you would have to seek the redress of the court for a miscarriage of justice.

The hiding of the fact that a witness is a child would be pretty difficult, and as I said a person with mental health issues may or may not be obvious to anybody.

While I get your point I think it is academic, say evidence is needed to corroborate, it will be obvious from the book of evidence that such evidence does not exist. A statement in the book of evidence is no more than an indication of the evidence to be presented in court against the accused, it is not evidence in its own right.

This is why we have disclosure in criminal trials, if a person has any doubt how a statement was taken, you can get copies of original notes, you can get logs of entry and exit from Garda station etc.

BTW, the defence do not corroborate anything, that is up to the prosecution to do so. the defence will see the need to corroborate, will see it is absent from the book of evidence, and will fight the case. If they did not know a witness was a child, I would be supprised, unless there is a lie on the statement declaring the person to be an adult. But a simple way around this is to seek disclosure in all cases of the persons who are giving witness statements DOB and birth certs.

In relation to cold cases as you seem to be dealing with, if a person in the early 1990's was accused of sexual assault on a child, and the only statment was that of the victim it would be obvious that the person is a child, even if it is not said. So I do not really understand why this is an issue.

A statement even if taken incorrectly or illegally is only a statement. Let's look at a different type case, say a person gives a witness statement which is a lie under duress. That statement is not evidence. If a person pleads guilty and later finds out that the person lied, well they may be able to seek a declaration of a miscarriage of justice, but this would be an up hill battle due to the guilty plea. I know in the US that such cases have worked when new evidence such as DNA proves the person did not do the crime, even though they pleaded guilty. If anyone is aware of an Irish case on point, I would like to know as I am not aware of one.

Reloc8

I'm going to assume you're talking about a hypothetical sex case.

Its very simple and goes like this :-

Defence lawyer : now, who is this [insert name] that has made this statement ?

Client : that's [insert name]. They're 8. They made all that up

Defence lawyer : I see. Well, children do funny things - we should certainly take a look at the circumstances in which the statement were taken. There are well recognised codes of practice for treatment of child witnesses and taking of statements and I shall investigate whether they were complied with (makes note to self - write letter seeking disclosure of circumstances in which this statement was taken and statements from all present describing what went on).

Defence lawyer : What about this [insert name]

Client : They are a person who suffers from certain difficulties - I believe they could fairly be described as having a severe learning disability. Again, its all nonsense.

Defence lawyer - Indeed, well I shall certainly seek similar information with regard to how this statement was taken.

So how realistic is it to think that an accused will not know that a person making an allegation against him is or may be a child, or a person under a disability ?

To take another example you are presumably thinking of this potential (however unlikely) scenario :-

Defence Lawyer : Now, who is this [insert name] ?

Client : I honestly have no idea. Never heard of them before in my life.

Defence Lawyer : Really ? You've never met or heard of them whatsoever ? They say their family lived next door to you for a few years/you taught them in school/you met them at the shops ? Well they say here that you [did something to them]. Did you ?

Client : No ! This is all lies !

Defence Lawyer : Very good - we will go to trial so ?

Client : Absolutely ! or

Client (later) : In fact I think I will plead guilty as I do not choose to take the risk of conviction and a far higher penalty.

Client (much later) : Why, if only I'd known that that witness was in fact a 12 year old girl/person with Down Syndrome. I'd never have pleaded guilty to this thing which I am not guilty of.

So you are identifying a potential case where the client has pleaded guilty to something, but would not have done so if they had known that the person making statements against them was a child/under a disability, and, the fact of that person being a child or under a disability was not known to the accused when they made their decision to plead guilty ?

Or, you are identifying a case where a witness statement did not state how the (presumably) victim did not state how they came to meet the accused - which where the accused denys knowing them at all would certainly be the subject of inquiry by or on his or her behalf.

Miscarriage of justice ?

MagicSean

Are you referring to a witness or a victim. Is it a situation where you get a book of evidence and it contains a statement from a witness who says they saw the suspect with the victim just before the crime. Based on this statement the suspect is advised to plead guilty. Later it is discovered that this witness was only 10 and could easily have had their testimony discredited due to their age.

Reloc8

To be fair, a witness statement will usually say [I am x and I live at y. I work as a [insert]/am unemployed].

If it didn't a defence lawyer should seek details, unless the rest of the statement makes clear that we're dealing with an adult

pirelli

ResearchWill wrote: »

That statement is not evidence. If a person pleads guilty and later finds out that the person lied, well they may be able to seek a declaration of a miscarriage of justice, but this would be an up hill battle due to the guilty plea. I know in the US that such cases have worked when new evidence such as DNA proves the person did not do the crime, even though they pleaded guilty. If anyone is aware of an Irish case on point, I would like to know as I am not aware of one.

The plea of guilty or not guilty is irrelevant under the criminal procedure act.It is the evidence that matters.

McDonagh

Is one such case under the 1993 criminal procedure act...where a witness withdrew there statement. His conviction was quashed.

pirelli

ResearchWill wrote: »

Well many cases of child abuse the victim is 50, the event may have happened 40 years ago but the statement can be from an adult.

Reloc8 wrote: »

I'm going to assume you're talking about a hypothetical sex case.

It is not a child abuse or sexual assault case!

pirelli

MagicSean wrote: »

Are you referring to a witness or a victim. Is it a situation where you get a book of evidence and it contains a statement from a witness who says they saw the suspect with the victim just before the crime. Based on this statement the suspect is advised to plead guilty. Later it is discovered that this witness was only 10 and could easily have had their testimony discredited due to their age.

A witness and yes that is exactly the situation.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

I'm going to assume you're talking about a hypothetical sex case.

Its very simple and goes like this :-

Defence lawyer : now, who is this [insert name] that has made this statement ?

Client : that's [insert name]. They're 8. They made all that up

Defence lawyer : I see. Well, children do funny things - we should certainly take a look at the circumstances in which the statement were taken. There are well recognised codes of practice for treatment of child witnesses and taking of statements and I shall investigate whether they were complied with (makes note to self - write letter seeking disclosure of circumstances in which this statement was taken and statements from all present describing what went on).

Defence lawyer : What about this [insert name]

Client : They are a person who suffers from certain difficulties - I believe they could fairly be described as having a severe learning disability. Again, its all nonsense.

Defence lawyer - Indeed, well I shall certainly seek similar information with regard to how this statement was taken.

So how realistic is it to think that an accused will not know that a person making an allegation against him is or may be a child, or a person under a disability ?

To take another example you are presumably thinking of this potential (however unlikely) scenario :-

Defence Lawyer : Now, who is this [insert name] ?

Client : I honestly have no idea. Never heard of them before in my life.

Defence Lawyer : Really ? You've never met or heard of them whatsoever ? They say their family lived next door to you for a few years/you taught them in school/you met them at the shops ? Well they say here that you [did something to them]. Did you ?

Client : No ! This is all lies !

Defence Lawyer : Very good - we will go to trial so ?

Client : Absolutely ! or

Client (later) : In fact I think I will plead guilty as I do not choose to take the risk of conviction and a far higher penalty.

Client (much later) : Why, if only I'd known that that witness was in fact a 12 year old girl/person with Down Syndrome. I'd never have pleaded guilty to this thing which I am not guilty of.

So you are identifying a potential case where the client has pleaded guilty to something, but would not have done so if they had known that the person making statements against them was a child/under a disability, and, the fact of that person being a child or under a disability was not known to the accused when they made their decision to plead guilty ?

Or, you are identifying a case where a witness statement did not state how the (presumably) victim did not state how they came to meet the accused - which where the accused denys knowing them at all would certainly be the subject of inquiry by or on his or her behalf.

Miscarriage of justice ?

Very amusing Reloc8

Although in the Michael Hannon case he had no contact with the victim and was completely innocent and he did not appeal his conviction. I just hope this thread doesn't just end in incompetence at the door of the defence solicitor.. there is no real remedy like a newly discovered fact.

It went more like; There was a male and a female living at such and such a residence and there names are such and such.This was the same for countless other statements and naturally it would be difficult not to get the impression that these are actually not the owners of the house. The female allegedly witnesses the commission of a crime and described in detail the horric acts perpetrated in Gorey detail.

Police are called and they circulate around the neighbour hood looking for a male in dark clothes and arrest some person a kilometer away for assault presumably. The police never actually interview the victim as the victim has gone off to hospital before they arrive. Police just assume victim was assaulted from what the what the witness is telling them.

The police just believed the females story

No medical forensic evaluation is ever done on the victim.Although there is a medical report which from a forensic perspective conflicts with the witness statement but it was not then reviewed forensically. The trace forensics and don't match up to the witness story and they begin to find anomaly's so the Forensic lab get very creative...and soon a miscarriage of justice is being wrapped up tightly into a travesty of justice.

The police arrive much later and the manner of arrest was changed by them and evidence was mishandled and property is investigated and not diviluged and evidence is hidden away.Then you verify the witness was a kid and then you discover the witness fabricated every word of the statement....that is the way it is going!The forensics did put him at at the scene of the crime and therefore he was liable for the crime.

However he was not charged with intent to cause harm or physical assault so his plea of guilty is related only to the criminal damage whilst he was innocent of it the forensics were is powerful that he would definitely be found guilty and then would also be guilty of assault not intent or physical assault but assault. Which together would be 10 year sin prison and the statement from the girl would ensure he got ten years as it was a vicious statement.

Subsequently the forensics are proven faulty and in fact show he was unlikely at the scene of the crime and most importantly in the manner suggested i.e in criminal damage- criminal fashion. The commission of the crime is what is important here. The girl created the commission of the crime. This has to be removed for the case to progress.The courts work on testimony and not engineers reports etc...

The conclusion there was is there was no crime and there was no victim.The woman tripped on a porch step and called out and a member of the public assisted. An ambulance was called and the woman was brought to hospital.

Just another fairytale from our fair system.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

To be fair, a witness statement will usually say [I am x and I live at y. I work as a [insert]/am unemployed].

If it didn't a defence lawyer should seek details, unless the rest of the statement makes clear that we're dealing with an adult

ResearchWill wrote: »

This is why we have disclosure in criminal trials, if a person has any doubt how a statement was taken, you can get copies of original notes, you can get logs of entry and exit from Garda station etc.

BTW, the defence do not corroborate anything, that is up to the prosecution to do so. the defence will see the need to corroborate, will see it is absent from the book of evidence, and will fight the case. If they did not know a witness was a child, I would be supprised, unless there is a lie on the statement declaring the person to be an adult. But a simple way around this is to seek disclosure in all cases of the persons who are giving witness statements DOB and birth certs.

.

Reloc8 you say we have disclosure in criminal trials..is this even after the book of evidence is served!

Should the solicitor have sought disclosure. Is the book of evidence not all your given. Is that not all the facts you have.

Reloc8

No its not. The prosecution have an obligation to disclose anything which they have which they may wish to rely on in court, anything which may advance the defence case or anything which may damage the prosecution case.

The defence can seek specific disclosure of other stuff which they believe the prosecution has, if it hasn't been furnished as general disclosure (the prosecution is engaging in a bit of mind reading in trying to work out what could advance a defence case and hence may not realise the significance of something).

By the way - what has the case you describe above got to do with child/disabled witnesses ???

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

No its not. The prosecution have an obligation to disclose anything which they have which they may wish to rely on in court, anything which may advance the defence case or anything which may damage the prosecution case.

The defence can seek specific disclosure of other stuff which they believe the prosecution has, if it hasn't been furnished as general disclosure (the prosecution is engaging in a bit of mind reading in trying to work out what could advance a defence case and hence may not realise the significance of something).

By the way - what has the case you describe above got to do with child/disabled witnesses ???

:eek: A newly discovered fact !!

MagicSean

I can't see how it would be relevant really. Either the witness account is correct or it isn't. I mean if the defendent says that the account is incorrect you will try and prove that. If he says the account is correct are you gonna say "Well hang on, it was made by a disabled child. We can probably make them look like a liar".

ResearchWill

pirelli wrote: »

:eek: A newly discovered fact !!

From my understanding the new facts related to the forensic evidence, if it had flaws this could have been discovered by the accused getting his own tests done. Also it seemed someone lied I did not understand was it the victim or a young child, but in either case getting back to the original post, how a statement was taken would not effect a person telling lies.

I have done a bit of searching in relation to taking statements from a child and while best practice dictates how such statements should be taken, I can find no law setting rules.

I agree with a previous poster re a witness telling lies and it being a miscarriage of justice. But the OP original question related only to the issue surrounding taking statements from children not if those statements contained lies.

golden virginia

I am interested in this thread - secondary school teacher here. i had to report reported child rape (16) to the gardai two years ago because I felt I had a child protection duty. It involved another student in class (18yrs) who was incolvd in this rape at his home - as reported to me by students . I dont know what actually occurred - just was obliged to report what was reported to me in class.

Anyway it was alleged that the gardai conducted an investigation of the students at the school. i was informed that the gardai took statements from students without their parents knowledge, that the male student blamed the female student for her conduct.

I actually don't know if any of this is true - but this is the feedback i got. It would turn me off reporting any reported child rape again - as i feel the whole things sounds badly handled. Most students were openly slagging/ bullying the female student about being raped and going on what i saw in class the male student was despicable in his claims about the female student.

I am interested in this thread because if students were interviewed by gardai then surely their parents would be contacted??? it seems no parent of any student was contacted at all!

MagicSean

golden virginia wrote: »

It would turn me off reporting any reported child rape again

I'm surprised you have a choice.

To be perfectly honest it is not your job to decide how something is investigated. I think it is appauling that you would consider not reporting a child being raped based solely on what you heard from a third party.

ResearchWill

golden virginia wrote: »

I am interested in this thread - secondary school teacher here. i had to report reported child rape (16) to the gardai two years ago because I felt I had a child protection duty. It involved another student in class (18yrs) who was incolvd in this rape at his home - as reported to me by students . I dont know what actually occurred - just was obliged to report what was reported to me in class.

Anyway it was alleged that the gardai conducted an investigation of the students at the school. i was informed that the gardai took statements from students without their parents knowledge, that the male student blamed the female student for her conduct.

I actually don't know if any of this is true - but this is the feedback i got. It would turn me off reporting any reported child rape again - as i feel the whole things sounds badly handled. Most students were openly slagging/ bullying the female student about being raped and going on what i saw in class the male student was despicable in his claims about the female student.

I am interested in this thread because if students were interviewed by gardai then surely their parents would be contacted??? it seems no parent of any student was contacted at all!

The 18 year old boy was an adult so his parents did not need to be informed. In relation to the 16 year old this matter has to be handled carefully, as the parents may not be aware their child is sexually active and it may have been a bf gf situation.

Now before any one starts I know the age of consent is 17 and yes it is a statutory rape, full stop. But AGS are aware as has happened in such case the 16 year old gets into the witness box and says nothing happened.

So I would think if you believe that AGS did not do their job you should make a complaint to the Garda ombudsman.

golden virginia

MagicSean wrote: »

I'm surprised you have a choice.

To be perfectly honest it is not your job to decide how something is investigated. I think it is appauling that you would consider not reporting a child being raped based solely on what you heard from a third party.

I never said i had a choice - I dont know if it do or not other than my own morals - reporting child rape is not in my contact of employment - i just acted out of out of concern for the child.

I only stated that i felt turned off reporting child rape. it is my true feeling to feel turned off based on reponses i received.

You see Magic Sean your response is the embodiment of responses i've received so far - Your appall is directed at teacher - appall at the reporter is - a turn off to reporting.

Anyway as i am not put off by appall blamers - i would appreciate to know if childrens parents are supposed to be contacted when making statements to gardai about child rape?

MagicSean

golden virginia wrote: »

I never said i had a choice - I dont know if it do or not other than my own morals - reporting child rape is not in my contact of employment - i just acted out of out of concern for the child.

I only stated that i felt turned off reporting child rape. it is my true feeling to feel turned off based on reponses i received.

You see Magic Sean your response is the embodiment of responses i've received so far - Your appall is directed at teacher - appall at the reporter is - a turn off to reporting.

Anyway as i am not put off by appall blamers - i would appreciate to know if childrens parents are supposed to be contacted when making statements to gardai about child rape?

There's no appall directed at the reporter. It's directed at someone in a position of authority who would not report a child rape.

As to your question, if you are referring to the victim, a parent or member of the HSE would have to be involved. It would be very unusual not to inform the parent.

ResearchWill

golden virginia wrote: »

I never said i had a choice - I dont know if it do or not other than my own morals - reporting child rape is not in my contact of employment - i just acted out of out of concern for the child.

I only stated that i felt turned off reporting child rape. it is my true feeling to feel turned off based on reponses i received.

You see Magic Sean your response is the embodiment of responses i've received so far - Your appall is directed at teacher - appall at the reporter is - a turn off to reporting.

Anyway as i am not put off by appall blamers - i would appreciate to know if childrens parents are supposed to be contacted when making statements to gardai about child rape?

In the situation such as you stated. You had heard third hand that there had been a rape, from students other than the two involved of a rape. In my opinion you did the right thing in reporting. Now then in relation to AGS, what if they went straight in on such info, contacted the girls parents etc. and it all turned out to be a relationship situation, now you have a huge problem.

So it may be in such circumstances, an idea for trained Garda to contact both parties and arrange a chat, if a crime is shown to have been committed then it would be correct to then arrange proper interviews and inform parents.

I am basing this on a number of facts, the information was school yard gossip, neither student involved had reported anything, the girl was 16 and the boy 18, while yes illegal it may do no one any good to drag those parties through the court especially if they are at the time of court in a relationship and both of age.

fasttalkerchat

golden virginia wrote: »

reporting child rape is not in my contact of employment.

If you had ignored what you were told you would have been dismissed from your job! It is your responsibility to pass that information on to the designated person for child protection or to the guard.

golden virginia

In truth this is all that i know;

I reported to the gardai that the student were saying that femalestudent aged 16 years was reported to have been raped in the bedroom of the 18 male year old student and that the male students mother brought the female student to the gardai.

I reported to gardai that the students in class said that it was by either the male student or his cousin but the majority of reports were that it was by his cousin.

The principal claims that gardai came to the school and interviewed 4 students at random from the class but none of these 4 students are the involved female or male.The male and female were both absent for a long time. Then then both students returned but there was slagging.

The principal claims that I was trying to maliciously victimise the male student. The gardai claim against my data protection request that that any statements generated during an investigation cannot be disclosed.

What has me concerned was that parents were not involved. The invsstigation of 4 non witnesses random students in child rape - shouldn't the gardai contact heir parents?

ResearchWill

golden virginia wrote: »

In truth this is all that i know;

I reported to the gardai that the student were saying that femalestudent aged 16 years was reported to have been raped in the bedroom of the 18 male year old student and that the male students mother brought the female student to the gardai.

I reported to gardai that the students in class said that it was by either the male student or his cousin but the majority of reports were that it was by his cousin.

The principal claims that gardai came to the school and interviewed 4 students at random from the class but none of these 4 students are the involved female or male.The male and female were both absent for a long time. Then then both students returned but there was slagging.

The principal claims that I was trying to maliciously victimise the male student. The gardai claim against my data protection request that that any statements generated during an investigation cannot be disclosed.

What has me concerned was that parents were not involved. The invsstigation of 4 non witnesses random students in child rape - shouldn't the gardai contact heir parents?

First of all no one is entitled to anyone other persons statement to gardai, except the defendant in a case.

You have no evidence that AGS did not interview either the girl or the boy, you are just aware they talked to 4 random students, in fact as you did not sit in those chats you don't even know why they where interviewed, unless AGS informed the principle who informed you, and if that was the case it was a breach of each of those students right to privacy.

In your recount of what happened you say the boys mother brought the girl to AGS, so the matter as reported by gossip to you was all ready reported, all you had to do was inform the principle of the gossip, he could have confirmed with AGS, in relation to any issues he as principle should be aware of.

Then after a gap the 2 students return, this does not sound like a rape, in fact it spuds like nasty gossip that got out of hand.

So your claim that parents had no involvement maybe incorrect as the boys mother according to gossip was involved, and how are you aware the girls mother did not know. It really sounds to me like two young people had terrible gossip ruin a chunk of their young lives.

Also in my opinion you should have know better than ask AGS for statements made by children you are not the parent of.

golden virginia

ResearchWill wrote: »

First of all no one is entitled to anyone other persons statement to gardai, except the defendant in a case.

You have no evidence that AGS did not interview either the girl or the boy, you are just aware they talked to 4 random students, in fact as you did not sit in those chats you don't even know why they where interviewed, unless AGS informed the principle who informed you, and if that was the case it was a breach of each of those students right to privacy.

In your recount of what happened you say the boys mother brought the girl to AGS, so the matter as reported by gossip to you was all ready reported, all you had to do was inform the principle of the gossip, he could have confirmed with AGS, in relation to any issues he as principle should be aware of.

Then after a gap the 2 students return, this does not sound like a rape, in fact it spuds like nasty gossip that got out of hand.

So your claim that parents had no involvement maybe incorrect as the boys mother according to gossip was involved, and how are you aware the girls mother did not know. It really sounds to me like two young people had terrible gossip ruin a chunk of their young lives.

Also in my opinion you should have know better than ask AGS for statements made by children you are not the parent of.

Hang on there Research Will with your accusations!

I asked the Gardai for my statement to them - not anyone elses. I Cant understand why I am not allowed to have it.

Secondly your estimation of the return of the two students is quite fantastic - The fact is the male student returned first and was his usual aggressive self. Then the female student returned - was very very withdrawn - looked ill. On her return her mother contacted the guidance counsellor and informed her that the gardai were investigating this matter. The male student - his friends were slagging the girl - insinuating that she was some sort of slut - I saw this myself and reported it to the school - principal did nothing about it.

The male student had in the weeks before this alleged incident had been extremely threatening and violent to this female student in my class - the Principal did not act on the discipline sheets that i submitted regarding the male students conduct towards the female student.

Your comments about gossip - maybe explains why this country has such a poor child protection history. The students who reported this to me were not at all gossipy - the were upset - just like I was - and am.

My reason for posting here was to find out if it could actually be true that the gardai came to the school and interviewed four students at the school without their parents being contacted. I dont believe the principal that the gardai actually did that.

The gardai told me that this male student was known to them already. The male student is very aggressive has threatened me too and the principal has never done anything about it. I think the principal is related to the male student.

ResearchWill

golden virginia wrote: »

Hang on there Research Will with your accusations!

I asked the Gardai for my statement to them - not anyone elses. I Cant understand why I am not allowed to have it.

Secondly your estimation of the return of the two students is quite fantastic - The fact is the male student returned first and was his usual aggressive self. Then the female student returned - was very very withdrawn - looked ill. On her return her mother contacted the guidance counsellor and informed her that the gardai were investigating this matter. The male student - his friends were slagging the girl - insinuating that she was some sort of slut - I saw this myself and reported it to the school - principal did nothing about it.

The male student had in the weeks before this alleged incident had been extremely threatening and violent to this female student in my class - the Principal did not act on the discipline sheets that i submitted regarding the male students conduct towards the female student.

Your comments about gossip - maybe explains why this country has such a poor child protection history. The students who reported this to me were not at all gossipy - the were upset - just like I was - and am.

My reason for posting here was to find out if it could actually be true that the gardai came to the school and interviewed four students at the school without their parents being contacted. I dont believe the principal that the gardai actually did that.

The gardai told me that this male student was known to them already. The male student is very aggressive has threatened me too and the principal has never done anything about it. I think the principal is related to the male student.

To clarify, I misunderstood your post about statements, you said any statements, you are of course as I said earlier entitled to your own statement, if you feel that AGS have done anything wrong you are of course entitled to complain.

I based my comments on gossip on what you said, you never stated in earlier post that the girl ever spoke to you.

Your problem it seems it not AGS, it is with your principle who from what you are saying protected a sex offender, student who according to what you heard attacked another student, in his care.

I based everything I have stated not on what I think happened but on your postings.

Now you have given more information, you have added that the male has been bulling the Female, that was not said before. You have stated that the principle is related to the boy, then a complaint to the department of education through your union should be made.

You have now stated that the principle told you about the interviews with the 4 students and that it was about the case of rape. Again a breach of thoses students rights or a blatant lie in either case the principle is wrong.

golden virginia

Thanks for that. Sorry if I got all cross at you Research Will - I am just a bit exasperated with my principal's carry on.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

No its not. The prosecution have an obligation to disclose anything which they have which they may wish to rely on in court, anything which may advance the defence case or anything which may damage the prosecution case.

The defence can seek specific disclosure of other stuff which they believe the prosecution has, if it hasn't been furnished as general disclosure (the prosecution is engaging in a bit of mind reading in trying to work out what could advance a defence case and hence may not realise the significance of something).

By the way - what has the case you describe above got to do with child/disabled witnesses ???

I have tried to explain how the case involves a child and respond to Magic Sean's post also. If there is a significance ( I use this word as it is used in the 1993 criminal procedure act which is legislation available for miscarriage of justice ) to the fact of the prosecution deliberately misleading the defence as to the fact the witness/s of the actual commission of the crime was a child then it might be a newly discovered fact if subsequently the commission of the crime was an invention and false. While I so not think a false witness statement alone is a newly discovered fact.

MagicSean wrote: »

I can't see how it would be relevant really. Either the witness account is correct or it isn't. I mean if the defendent says that the account is incorrect you will try and prove that. If he says the account is correct are you gonna say "Well hang on, it was made by a disabled child. We can probably make them look like a liar".

It is very relevant if your appealing it as miscarriage of justice

It may well prove to be a newly discovered fact of you can show the prosecution by their blatant omission that the statement was from a child

You do not imagine a grown up lying to Police but you can imagine a child confusing perception and reality. I am not going to go as far as to call them a liar but if you do not witness the commission of a crime or as in this instance are not in a position to see anything and you invent an extremely serious commission of a crime which has never happened i would hope that would be an offence under the 1976 Law act Section 12 if the result of that 'falsehood' was a continuing miscarriage of justice.

In the General workings of the law the power of testimony far outweighs the power of logic, common sense, and even science; an unfortunate fact that the Garda exploit to avoid the work and tedious commitment required to faithfully prosecute a case