Garda Statement

kildaremike

Hi all, first post here so if I get anything wrong please let me know. I was recently convicted of a driving offence and just have a few queries. Before the court date my solicitor received a copy of the garda statement and charge sheet. The statement had two different dates when referring to the offence but my solicitor told me it depended on what the garda said in court.
My solicitor advised me to plead guilty so after the guard had read a few lines of the statement my solicitor told the court that we accepted the statement and asked the judge to give his verdict, which was a ban and a fine.
Is the solicitor correct? Can a garda say something in court which is different to the statement?
If the statement was accepted in court is the garda guilty of an offence as it says at the start of the statement that the garda accepts that if there is anything untrue he is liable to prosecution.
thanks for any replies.

coylemj

It sounds like you're now trying to pick holes in the prosecution case even though you pleaded guilty on the advice of your solicitor who listened to the start of the Garda's statement from the witness box and clearly decided there and then that the game was up as far as you were concerned.

The Garda may have made a mistake in the dates wen preparing his statement or the person who helped him to type up the statement make have made a transcription error, it doesn't mean that he is guilty of any offence. What he actually says in the witness box is all that counts as your solicitor told you.

GerardKeating

kildaremike wrote: »

Hi all, first post here so if I get anything wrong please let me know. I was recently convicted of a driving offence and just have a few queries. Before the court date my solicitor received a copy of the garda statement and charge sheet. The statement had two different dates when referring to the offence but my solicitor told me it depended on what the garda said in court.
My solicitor advised me to plead guilty so after the guard had read a few lines of the statement my solicitor told the court that we accepted the statement and asked the judge to give his verdict, which was a ban and a fine.
Is the solicitor correct? Can a garda say something in court which is different to the statement?
If the statement was accepted in court is the garda guilty of an offence as it says at the start of the statement that the garda accepts that if there is anything untrue he is liable to prosecution.
thanks for any replies.

Does it really matter, you admit you are guily of the charge...

ResearchWill

A statement is just an indication of the evidence against you. What matters is the evidence given viva voce that is the evidence given on the day in court. If such evidence is at odds with the statement in a serious way then the statement can be used to discredit the evidence given on the day.

Errors like dates and reg numbers if corrected on the day in evidence then any legal point based on the error is dead in the water.

Sala

Interesting. Sorry to hijack this, but I heard a solicitor once say to someone where the summons of whatever it was (it was from another jurisdiction) said you are accused on X offence on, for example, 3rd March 2013, would be thrown out were it in Ireland, given the date in question has't even happened. Is that not true so?

Milk & Honey

Sala wrote: »

Interesting. Sorry to hijack this, but I heard a solicitor once say to someone where the summons of whatever it was (it was from another jurisdiction) said you are accused on X offence on, for example, 3rd March 2013, would be thrown out were it in Ireland, given the date in question has't even happened. Is that not true so?

Urban legend.

coylemj

Sala wrote: »

Interesting. Sorry to hijack this, but I heard a solicitor once say to someone where the summons of whatever it was (it was from another jurisdiction) said you are accused on X offence on, for example, 3rd March 2013, would be thrown out were it in Ireland, given the date in question has't even happened. Is that not true so?

Not true, under the District Court Rules the judge can amend the summons and proceed to hear the case.

2. A Judge may amend any summons, civil summons, notice or counterclaim by adding or striking out parties or by amending such other defects and errors in any such document as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question at issue between the parties.

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/e36122b3cdf0111080256d2b0046a097?OpenDocument

Sala

Thanks for the replies. Would it be common in practice that it would be struck out but the legislation permits them to change it, but they don't? It's not an urban legend in the sense that it was a qualified solicitor saying this is what happens.

Milk & Honey

Sala wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. Would it be common in practice that it would be struck out but the legislation permits them to change it, but they don't? It's not an urban legend in the sense that it was a qualified solicitor saying this is what happens.

Very few solicitors actually practise in the criminal division of the District Court. A lot of what happens is down to the vagaries of the presiding judge who is highly likely not to have practised in criminal law before appointment. Just because a person is a qualified solicitor does not mean they know anything about criminal procedure in the courts. A summons is not evidence of the contents of it. It is simply a device to get a person to attend court. Once a person is in court it doesn't matter what is on the summons. the evidence in the case is given orally and that is what counts.

District Court Rules
Order: 38

Variance between evidence and complaint
1. (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) hereof, in cases of summary jurisdiction no variance between the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof, as to the time at which the offence or cause of complaint is stated to have been committed or to have arisen, shall be deemed material, provided that such information or complaint was in fact made within the time limited by law for making the same; nor shall any variance between the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof, as to the place in which the offence or cause of complaint is stated to have been committed or to have arisen, be deemed material, provided that the said offence or cause of complaint was committed or arose within the jurisdiction of the Judge by whom the case is being heard, or that, the accused resides or in the case of an offence was arrested within such jurisdiction. In any such case the Court may amend the summons, warrant or other document by which the proceedings were originated and proceed to hear and determine the matter.
Defects
(2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) hereof, no objection shall be taken or allowed on the ground of a defect in substance or in form or an omission in the summons, warrant or other document by which the proceedings were originated, or of any variance between any such document and the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecutor at the hearing of the case in summary proceedings or at the examination of the witnesses during the preliminary examination of an indictable offence, but the Court may amend any such summons, warrant or other document, or proceed in the matter as though no such defect, omission or variance had existed.

Court’s discretion
(3) Provided, however, that if in the opinion of the Court the variance, defect or omission is one which has misled or prejudiced the accused or which might affect the merits of the case, it may refuse to make any such amendment and may dismiss the complaint either without prejudice to its being again made, or on the merits, as the Court thinks fit; or if it makes such amendment, it may upon such terms as it thinks fit adjourn the proceedings to any future day at the same time or at any other place.

No offence disclosed / No appearance
(4) Where the Court is of opinion that the complaint before it discloses no offence at law, or if neither the prosecutor nor accused appears, it may if it or thinks fit strike out the complaint with or without awarding costs.