Civil v Criminal

gozunda

In legal terms what is the essential difference between a criminal and a civil case

I am thinking particularly of instances where there has been an injury to the individual.

Is their a point where there can be crossover?

ResearchWill

gozunda wrote: »

In legal terms what is the essential difference between a criminal and a civil case

I am thinking particularly of instances where there has been an injury to the individual.

Is their a point where there can be crossover?

Yes they can cross over, in your example there is the civil wrong of the tort trespass on the person and the criminal wrong of section 3 or 4 of the non fatal offences against the person act 1997.

Peregrinus

gozunda wrote: »

In legal terms what is the essential difference between a criminal and a civil case

I am thinking particularly of instances where there has been an injury to the individual.

Is their a point where there can be crossover?

I dunno about crossover, but there's lots of overlap. You can be prosecuted for theft, and also sued in tort by the owner of whatever it is you have stolen. You can be prosecuted for a range of assault offences, and also sued by your victim. You can be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter, and also sued by the victim's family (as OJ Simpson discovered.) You can be prosecuted for a range of motoring offences on facts which also give rise to a negligence action against you. (This is quite common, in fact.)

And many more examples could be produced.

CIARAN_BOYLE

and sometimes because of the differing standard of proofs you escape conviction but still pay damages

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/08/omagh-real-ira-leaders-liable

Four men found liable for Omagh bombing. Of the four men one was charged and acquitted while another was had a conviction quashed but all four had to pay damages

coylemj

And if there is an overlap, the criminal process has to finish before the civil action can proceed. As stated above, a finding of not guilty in the criminal case does not preclude a civil action going ahead because the level of proof required in the criminal case is much higher. If the person is convicted in the criminal case then the civil case is pretty much done and dusted i.e. the issue of liability/culpability is already proven so the only issue to be sorted out is the amount of money to be paid as damages/compensation.

Procrastastudy

Sometimes clarifing what is a civil and criminal matter has been difficult. It's no longer such an issue but if you look at cases like Melling v. O Mathghamhna [1962] IR 1 you will get some guidance.