my friend was attacked by a 17 y.o . ..

falabo

as title explains, my friend was assaulted by a 17 y.0 he had a broken nose etc .... it was caught on camera, he went to the Garda who interview the youth

He was advised to be in touch with a solicitor. it's been a few weeks. His solicitr told him that the youth's solicitor had advised him to write a letter of apology and offer compensation for him tro drop the charges.

Now my friends solicitor turns around and sayd "it's a bit messy because of his age, you might have to go to the Circuit Court"

Can this 17 y.o. just get away with it even if he's clearly on CCTV, just because of his ages ???

My friend wants justice done and wants to bring him to court . . .

ResearchWill

falabo wrote: »

as title explains, my friend was assaulted by a 17 y.0 he had a broken nose etc .... it was caught on camera, he went to the Garda who interview the youth

He was advised to be in touch with a solicitor. it's been a few weeks. His solicitr told him that the youth's solicitor had advised him to write a letter of apology and offer compensation for him tro drop the charges.

Now my friends solicitor turns around and sayd "it's a bit messy because of his age, you might have to go to the Circuit Court"

Can this 17 y.o. just get away with it even if he's clearly on CCTV, just because of his ages ???

My friend wants justice done and wants to bring him to court . . .

Maybe I misread your post but you say "it's a bit messy because of his age, you might have to go to the Circuit Court" so it seems the matter will be on indictiment before a jury, so what's the problem?

source

Could it be there is a counter allegation that is upheld by the cctv footage? This could explain the solicitor and Gardai advising the case is dropped on payment of compensation.

ResearchWill

source wrote: »

Could it be there is a counter allegation that is upheld by the cctv footage? This could explain the solicitor and Gardai advising the case is dropped on payment of compensation.

Just to clarify, the OP's friend can't drop the charges even if he wants too. The only people able to do that are AGS or the DPP if file has been sent.

Peregrinus

Yes, dropping charges is a decision for the state, not the victim. But if the victim indicates that he would like the charges to be dropped, that's a fairly weighty factor in the state's decision.

source

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, dropping charges is a decision for the state, not the victim. But if the victim indicates that he would like the charges to be dropped, that's a fairly weighty factor in the state's decision.

Exactly if the injured party decides to withdraw their statement and makes a further statement to that effect, then there is basically no case for the accused to answer. Sure technically AGS could push on with the prosecution.

But if there's a statement withdrawing the complaint then, from my experience, unless the evidence against the accused is enough to get a prosecution on is own, the case will be dropped.

ResearchWill

source wrote: »

Exactly if the injured party decides to withdraw their statement and makes a further statement to that effect, then there is basically no case for the accused to answer. Sure technically AGS could push on with the prosecution.

But if there's a statement withdrawing the complaint then, from my experience, unless the evidence against the accused is enough to get a prosecution on is own, the case will be dropped.

From the OP Can this 17 y.o. just get away with it even if he's clearly on CCTV, just because of his ages ???

There is CCTV evidence, if the OP's friend has given a statment and if the accused has given a statment both of those in certain circumstances can be read to the jury.

While in practice if a victim/witness withdraws their statment the case is withdrawn, but legally a victim can not insist on the withdrawal of a case if AGS/DPP wish to proceed.

eor123

Im not completely certain, but the age of criminal liability is 12, but as he is under 18 he would be tried as a minor, I would doubt prison would be on the cards, just compensation.. Thats what I would think anyway..

Cream_crackers

falabo wrote: »

as title explains, my friend was assaulted by a 17 y.0 he had a broken nose etc .... it was caught on camera, he went to the Garda who interview the youth

He was advised to be in touch with a solicitor.

My friend wants justice done and wants to bring him to court . . .

Assume the guards told your friend to contact a solicitor. I suspect they are not going to do anything about it so would advise if your friend wants this to go to court he needs to haunt the garda who took the statement and make sure they know you want this case pursued and sent to DPP

The guards often don't bother 'wasting time' on even violent offences by minors as by the time it get to a judge they let them off with a warning etc.

I have spoken to guards about dealing with juveniles and turns out they can have about 15-20 offences (property damage, joy riding) and only then receive a nice certificate for their work called an ASBO
Bring back the days of juvenile detention I say.

MagicSean

Op your post makes no sense, probably because it's Chinese whispers at this stage. It could be that the defendants solicitor will be looking for the judge to give probation if he acts sorry and gives compensation.

Procrastastudy

Cream_crackers wrote: »

Bring back the days of juvenile detention I say.

Defo! €100,000 each, a year to house them and the multi-million euro complex needing to be built would definitely not be better spent anywhere else.

krd

eor123 wrote: »

Im not completely certain, but the age of criminal liability is 12, but as he is under 18 he would be tried as a minor, I would doubt prison would be on the cards, just compensation.. Thats what I would think anyway..

Do not bet on it.

Someone who is under 18 is a minor, but the judge might consider a 17 year old, old enough for the Joy, (and not St Pats or the training wing). I knew someone who was 17 and expecting the probation act, and he got 6 months in the Joy.

I'm not sure, but I think the judge has leeway in who he can consider to be a minor.

eoinkildare

krd wrote: »

Do not bet on it.

I knew someone who was 17 and expecting the probation act, and he got 6 months in the Joy.

I'm not sure, but I think the judge has leeway in who he can consider to be a minor.

No you don't.

krd

eoinkildare wrote: »

No you don't.

Oh yes I do. That was around 1990, so that's 20 years ago, and things may have changed. I would imagine all the youth offenders would be put in Wheatfield now.

I don't know what the story is. If there is legislation that says you cannot put someone under 18 in the Joy.


I have managed to stay out of jail all my life, but some of my friends have no been so flight of foot, and to be honest a little thick.

ResearchWill

krd wrote: »

Oh yes I do. That was around 1990, so that's 20 years ago, and things may have changed. I would imagine all the youth offenders would be put in Wheatfield now.

I don't know what the story is. If there is legislation that says you cannot put someone under 18 in the Joy.


I have managed to stay out of jail all my life, but some of my friends have no been so flight of foot, and to be honest a little thick.

The Children Act 2001

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0024/sec0147.html#sec147

The important word is shall

147.—Where the court imposes a period of detention on a child it shall—

(a) where the child is under 16 years of age, order the child to be detained in a children detention school,

(b) where the child is between 16 and 18 years of age, order the child to be detained in a children detention centre.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/children_and_young_offenders/detention_of_children_and_young_people.html

krd

ResearchWill wrote: »

The important word is shall

Is shall a special conditional word in legalease?


I think the issue in the past was, there simply was not much capacity in St.Pats ( I think the capacity of 50 hasn't changed since the 60s)

ResearchWill

krd wrote: »

Is shall a special conditional word in legalease?


I think the issue in the past was, there simply was not much capacity in St.Pats ( I think the capacity of 50 hasn't changed since the 60s)

In legal interpretation shall means must, has too etc so if a court is detaining a child it MUST or SHALL send the child to the following places.

Statutes use either may or shall, may means the court has an option shall means no option.

eoinkildare

The capacity of St. Pats is more than 50.
No person under 18 goes to mountjoy. I don't think anyone under 21 goes to mountjoy in fact. Oberstown, Trinity House and Pats take the kids.
Wheatfield does not.

krd

Does the court decide the prison - or just the sentencing?

Can the court designate the prison?