Dropping assault charges ?

Colash

Once one decides to drop an assault charge ., can they decide to press the charge again a month later or a year later or ten years later if they had a change of heart ?Or is it scrapped by the Gardai once the charge is dropped ?

ResearchWill

Colash wrote: »

Once one decides to drop an assault charge ., can they decide to press the charge again a month later or a year later or ten years later if they had a change of hear ?Or is it scrapped by the Gardai once the charge is dropped ?

Legally it is not up to the victim of a crime to drop charges, it is up to AGS or the DPP. Unless someone is acting as a common informer they do not press charges they make a complaint.

Colash

ResearchWill wrote: »

Legally it is not up to the victim of a crime to drop charges, it is up to AGS or the DPP. Unless someone is acting as a common informer they do not press charges they make a complaint.

Been informed that it dosent need to go any further than the ags once a mutual agreement has been reached to drop all charges

ResearchWill

Colash wrote: »

Been informed that it dosent need to go any further than the ags once a mutual agreement has been reached to drop all charges

If AGS agree then yes but if after complaint AGS or if a file has been sent the DPP wish to continue prosecution it matters not what the accused and the complaint think or do. If the matter is on indictment and the complaint refuses to give evidence the prosecution can apply to have the statment read to the jury.

Colash

ResearchWill wrote: »

If AGS agree then yes but if after complaint AGS or if a file has been sent the DPP wish to continue prosecution it matters not what the accused and the complaint think or do. If the matter is on indictment and the complaint refuses to give evidence the prosecution can apply to have the statment read to the jury.

Ags has agreed that no file has been sent an charges can be dropped if an agreement is reached . Once the charge is dropped by all parties an ags , can the original complaint be re issued in the future or is it permanent scrapped ?

ResearchWill

Colash wrote: »

Ags has agreed that no file has been sent an charges can be dropped if an agreement is reached . Once the charge is dropped by all parties an ags , can the original complaint be re issued in the future or is it permanent scrapped ?

I can't think of any reason why the complaint can't be made again, but I doubt AGS would take such a complaint seriously, if the matter is a minor one there are short time limits to issue summons.

If this is a real situation legal advice should be sought.

Colash

ResearchWill wrote: »

I can't think of any reason why the complaint can't be made again, but I doubt AGS would take such a complaint seriously, if the matter is a minor one there are short time limits to issue summons.

If this is a real situation legal advice should be sought.

Thanks will

Peregrinus

A decision not to proceed with criminal charges is up to the guards or the DPP, but if the key witness - e.g. the victim in an assault charge - doesn't want to give evidence, that would certainly affect their decision.

A decision to resume proceeding would likewise be up to the guards or the DPP, but it is very unlikely that they would resume, if the success of the prosecution was going to depend on such a fickle witness.

BRAIN FEEDs

Saw a case in the DC very recently where the inspector was reading out the details of an assualt by a husband on his wife.
the wife stood up and said to the judge she didnt want to proceed with the charge. judge told her the case was going ahead with or without her. the case was to be heard after lunch but i didnt return to see the outcome.

SB2013

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

Saw a case in the DC very recently where the inspector was reading out the details of an assualt by a husband on his wife.
the wife stood up and said to the judge she didnt want to proceed with the charge. judge told her the case was going ahead with or without her. the case was to be heard after lunch but i didnt return to see the outcome.

Probably involved some form of protection order. Generally the judge will give a choice, proceed with your complaint or lose your protection order.

Benbulnen64

Very difficult to proceed without Complainant evidence although it is the State that takes the case against the accused.

Re the suggestion that application could be made to have the Complainant's statement read into evidence. No Defence Counsel worth their salt would stand for that, given the inability to test the Complainant's evidence by cross exam...

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Very difficult to proceed without Complainant evidence although it is the State that takes the case against the accused.

Re the suggestion that application could be made to have the Complainant's statement read into evidence. No Defence Counsel worth their salt would stand for that, given the inability to test the Complainant's evidence by cross exam...

If in the District Court (as I said earlier) then the statment can not be read, but other evidence may exist the accused may have admitted the offence in his statment. If on indictment in certain circumstances a victims or any other witness statmemt can be read to the jury.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0026/sec0016.html#sec16

Benbulnen64

Even where other evidence may exist that might be seen to implicate the accused , in the absence of Complainant evidence the State often makes the pragmatic decision not to proceed...

TG for the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof.

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Even where other evidence may exist that might be seen to implicate the accused , in the absence of Complainant evidence the State often makes the pragmatic decision not to proceed...

TG for the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof.

I have seen both happen. In the DC yes the state usually drop matters but not always and there seems to be a policy not the do so in domestic violence. On indictment the State seems to push on with out victim quite a lot as long as there is other evidence, (BTW the accused own statment admitting guilt would in many cases be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt). But again depends on the type of crime.

Benbulnen64

Disagree strongly that accused's own statement would in many cases be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Statements can be taken in many kinds of circumstances, some of which can be undesirable.

That kind of mentality, viewing accused statements as almost de facto satisfying brd, can lead to, and has previously resulted in, the occurrence of miscarriages of justice...

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Disagree strongly that accused's own statement would in many cases be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Statements can be taken in many kinds of circumstances, some of which can be undesirable.

That kind of mentality, viewing accused statements as almost de facto satisfying brd, can lead to, and has previously resulted in, the occurrence of miscarriages of justice...

Why do you think an accused own written statement recorded in an interview admitting guilt is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A person says A hit me. A is arrested taken to Garda station, is interviewed makes a full and frank admission says "Ya I hit him I wanted to steal his phone so I gave him a few slaps and broke his jaw" the victim discovers that the guy is a drug lord so refuses to give evidence. You really don't think there is enough evidence in the accused own admission properly taken. If an accused statement could not be used in such circumstances why interview suspects.

BTW I have seen many cases where the only evidence against the accused was his own statement.

Benbulnen64

Why are you talking about drug lords and giving this very specific fact scenario?! It means nothing in real terms, just a one off you have seized upon in a flailing attempt to somehow prove that you are right!

There are so many different types of crime and thousands of different fact scenarios. The reality is that sometimes statements are not voluntary/ are not taken properly or in fair circumstances.

Having seen things from both sides of the fence, as a prosecutor for the first few years and defence counsel for the last 12 years, I have encounteted many "statements" that were incredibly far removed from the accused's actual version of events/ what actually occurred.

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Why are you talking about drug lords and giving this very specific fact scenario?! It means nothing in real terms, just a one off you have seized upon in a flailing attempt to somehow prove that you are right!

There are so many different types of crime and thousands of different fact scenarios. The reality is that sometimes statements are not voluntary/ are not taken properly or in fair circumstances.

Having seen things from both sides of the fence, as a prosecutor for the first few years and defence counsel for the last 12 years, I have encounteted many "statements" that were incredibly far removed from the accused's actual version of events/ what actually occurred.

So you are saying as a prosecutor you have never seen a case where the only evidence was the accuseds statment. As a defence barrister I am currently working on one such case and have worked on at least one in the past.

I also made it clear that I was talking about properly taken admissions, i agree some statments are incorrectly taken which is why i made the point i did about properly made. When you use the word counsel do you mean barrister I have never heard of a barrister doing prosecution work first and then moving to defence. Highly unusual.

Benbulnen64

In your earlier post you argued that in MANY cases the only evidence intended to constitute brd would be accused's statement. You now seem to be resiling from that position...

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

In your earlier post you argued that in MANY cases the only evidence intended to constitute brd would be accused's statement. You now seem to be resiling from that position...

No I am not moving back from that position I stick to it. A properly taken statment given correctly can and does count as evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and lead to a conviction of the accused of and by itself.

Benbulnen64

And you have encountered how many of those types of guilty verdicts??

I mean you, not what you've heard in the form of anecdotes/ other lawyers' war stories...

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

And you have encountered how many of those types of guilty verdicts??

I mean you, not what you've heard in the form of anecdotes/ other lawyers' war stories...

Yes, I have encountered cases where either a guilty verdict was returned or the accused pleaded guilty based only on his statment. All other evidence only showed a crime had been committed but did not show it was the accused.

I am currently working on one where a guilty plea will more than likely be entered and only evidence is full statment of the accused.

SB2013

I've seen a few cases like this, mostly assaults or domestics. Also consider the case of a collision involving drink driving. I've seen plenty of these cases where the only evidence that the accused had been driving was their own admission.

Benbulnen64

A conviction where the accused enters a PG is an entirely different scenario. Some such accused might not even have had the benefit of legal advice before pleading, thus the statements involved might not have even been properly taken.

Benbulnen64

Re drunk driving, you mean the accused was not in the car post collision when the police arrived? As if s/he were then that's not just relying on a statement.

I had a driving whilst suspended where two police witnesses gave sworn evidence that they saw my client driving. His partner testified she was driving. He was acquitted. On the face of that brief ypu might have thought with two police witnesses, no acquittal. Things are not always as clear cut as they seem.


All I'm saying is that brd is a high standard and it's rare to get a conviction on statement alone. Good defence counsel very often manage to find some problem/ hitch with the form/ content of the statement.

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

A conviction where the accused enters a PG is an entirely different scenario. Some such accused might not even have had the benefit of legal advice before pleading, thus the statements involved might not have even been properly taken.

What are you on about. No judge would take a guilty plea with out at least offering legal advice. On indictment it is almost unheard of to not have legal aid. Are you in ireland working as a lawyer.

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Re drunk driving, you mean the accused was not in the car post collision when the police arrived? As if s/he were then that's not just relying on a statement.

I had a driving whilst suspended where two police witnesses gave sworn evidence that they saw my client driving. His partner testified she was driving. He was acquitted. On the face of that brief ypu might have thought with two police witnesses, no acquittal. Things are not always as clear cut as they seem.


All I'm saying is that brd is a high standard and it's rare to get a conviction on statement alone. Good defence counsel very often manage to find some problem/ hitch with the form/ content of the statement.

I agree if statment taken incorrectly then no conviction or plea. Which was why I said a properly taken statment. I have watched interview videos and got full statment thrown out, but that is not always possible.

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Re drunk driving, you mean the accused was not in the car post collision when the police arrived? As if s/he were then that's not just relying on a statement.

I had a driving whilst suspended where two police witnesses gave sworn evidence that they saw my client driving. His partner testified she was driving. He was acquitted. On the face of that brief ypu might have thought with two police witnesses, no acquittal. Things are not always as clear cut as they seem.


All I'm saying is that brd is a high standard and it's rare to get a conviction on statement alone. Good defence counsel very often manage to find some problem/ hitch with the form/ content of the statement.

What has your above example of driving while suspended got to do with statments of the accused.

SB2013

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Re drunk driving, you mean the accused was not in the car post collision when the police arrived? As if s/he were then that's not just relying on a statement.

I had a driving whilst suspended where two police witnesses gave sworn evidence that they saw my client driving. His partner testified she was driving. He was acquitted. On the face of that brief ypu might have thought with two police witnesses, no acquittal. Things are not always as clear cut as they seem.


All I'm saying is that brd is a high standard and it's rare to get a conviction on statement alone. Good defence counsel very often manage to find some problem/ hitch with the form/ content of the statement.

I think you are missing the point though. You are saying that it can be overlooked as evidence based on some technicality. But the issue is wether a properly taken statement can constitute sufficient evidence against the person who made it.

Benbulnen64

"On Indictment it is almost unheard of..." Are you saying that those who are not charged with indictable offences do not merit legal representation also before entering PGs??

You seem to be getting very het up here, making personal jibes. It must be difficult for you to maintain a sense of professionalism in court if you are that easily riled.

Benbulnen64

SB, perhaps you are missing the point. The issue so often is whether it is a statement that was properly taken...

SB2013

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

"On Indictment it is almost unheard of..." Are you saying that those who are not charged with indictable offences do not merit legal representation also before entering PGs??

You seem to be getting very het up here, making personal jibes. It must be difficult for you to maintain a sense of professionalism in court if you are that easily riled.

No he seems to be saying that a plea on a summary offence may be taken by a judge when no legal advice has been taken but a judge would be unlikely to accept a plea on an indictable offence unless he was fully sure the accused had sufficient legal advice.

Benbulnen64

Again, SB so the entering of a summary pg without legal advice doesn't seem problematic to you?

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

"On Indictment it is almost unheard of..." Are you saying that those who are not charged with indictable offences do not merit legal representation also before entering PGs??

You seem to be getting very het up here, making personal jibes. It must be difficult for you to maintain a sense of professionalism in court if you are that easily riled.

This is not court, yes I get riled when people are wrong, I never said only people on indictment deserve lawyers more than those in the DC. Any lawyer in practice in ireland would know exactly what I mean, which is that in the DC as cases are minor legal aid is not always available, often one of the tests is will the accused do jail. On indictment legal aid is almost universal and as jail time is a real possibility with no bail usually pending appeal. The court would insist usually on indictment of granting legal aid and the person getting advice.

Benbulnen64

There you go again RW just assuming that you are right and others are wrong. After a few years more legal experience you might learn a bit more humility - steep learning curve...

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

There you go again RW just assuming that you are right and others are wrong. After a few years more legal experience you might learn a bit more humility - steep learning curve...

Lol, it's also another skill a layer should have knowing when the law is with or against him. It's not about how humble or not I am it's about how good the advice I give. Yes I have lots to learn as does any lawyer 10 years in practice and hopefully many more to come. But you have made a statment which is legally incorrect, I and others have pointed that out. You don't have the good grace to admit your statment was incorrect. I would much rather my lawyer was arrogant and right than humble and wrong.

SB2013

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

SB, perhaps you are missing the point. The issue so often is whether it is a statement that was properly taken...

But that is beside the point. The question was wether a statement could be sufficient evidence in itself. The answer is yes.

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Again, SB so the entering of a summary pg without legal advice doesn't seem problematic to you?

What I believe should happen is irrelevent. We are talking about what actually happens.

Benbulnen64

RW I'm surprised at how easily I have ruffled your feathers. Your holding arrogance out as a positive trait for a lawyer, I find troubling.

My comment was not legally incorrect. I have stated that it is rare for an accused's statement to found, without more, a brd that would achieve a criminal conviction. I say this based upon what I have encountered during 15 years of legal experience. Your reliance on another poster here agreeing with you on point does not strengthen your position one whit ( it actually adds a childish air to your post).

RW, a wake up call. In the real legal world ( as opposed to the UCC evening BCL where you say the evening students ran rings around the day ones!) you are inevitably going to meet legal professionals with greater and more varied legal experience than you have. To simply arrogantly pronounce them as being wrong when you don't like what they have to say, is just going to make you look puerile and unprofessional.

Rest easy though that I will not come treading upon your well trodden turf on this forum too often highlighting legal fallacies/inaccuracies , as I lead a busy life....

ResearchWill

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

RW I'm surprised at how easily I have ruffled your feathers. Your holding arrogance out as a positive trait for a lawyer, I find troubling.

My comment was not legally incorrect. I have stated that it is rare for an accused's statement to found, without more, a brd that would achieve a criminal conviction. I say this based upon what I have encountered during 15 years of legal experience. Your reliance on another poster here agreeing with you on point does not strengthen your position one whit ( it actually adds a childish air to your post).

RW, a wake up call. In the real legal world ( as opposed to the UCC evening BCL where you say the evening students ran rings around the day ones!) you are inevitably going to meet legal professionals with greater and more varied legal experience than you have. To simply arrogantly pronounce them as being wrong when you don't like what they have to say, is just going to make you look puerile and unprofessional.

Rest easy though that I will not come treading upon your well trodden turf on this forum too often highlighting legal fallacies/inaccuracies , as I lead a busy life....

Re read my post there you go misreading or misquoting again. So you accept that a person can be convicted on only his own statment and no other evidence. So you agree it can and has happened.

The personal jibes I will put down to you being new on here or else a troll. BTW congratulations on the 15 years experience thought it was 12 earlier.

Good on your busy life thankfully as its Easter hols I have extra time at the moment. But you would know that as counsel of 12 or 15 years in practice.

Benbulnen64

Your inability to read even short material must be a handicap for you as a lawyer. If you read my earlier post properly and were not so keen to jump in to make jibes and haplessly try to prove me wrong, you would have read that I spent my first few years with prosecutions and the last 12 as a defence counsel. Yes, 15. A little over 15 as it happens but I rounded down...

Well rounded people lead busy LIVES, and are not just busy as lawyers.

cursai

OP go into the Garda station and ask their advice. Off the member you made the complaint to preferably. This conversation is going in egotistical circles. Im sure it can be dropped as in most case.

Benbulnen64

I'd sooner advise a client to set themselves on fire than to enter a Garda station and do what you have just suggested!

Flee, poster with the question - enter no Garda station ...

ResearchWill

cursai wrote: »

OP go into the Garda station and ask their advice. Off the member you made the complaint to preferably. This conversation is going in egotistical circles. Im sure it can be dropped as in most case.

I totally accept your comment on ego taking over this and my comment is aimed at me. You are correct the OP should talk to AGS if he is the victim and to a solicitor if he is the accused.