District Court

surenow

Hi, second year llb student here and I am confused with the evidentiary procedures in the District Court.

I searched the forum for similar issues and as I am new to boards I apologise to any mod's if it was answered already.

I have not come across it in College but reading local newspaper reports. It seems to me that rather than beyond reasonable doubt the district court relies on preponderance of evidence.

For example, I read recently, X accused Y of threatening him with a knife. X called the Gardai and they searched Y but found no knife. They found a knife in the vicinity and X identified it as the knife he was threatened with. It was not in the possession of Y. Y was convicted.

We have mostly studied the Hight Court, Central Criminal Court and Supreme Court so I am wondering is evidentiary procedure more lax in the lower courts. It seems to me that such cases could easily be quashed on appeal?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

McCrack

You're correct. The application of rules of evidence and law vary between different district judges, but they can be lax or not as formal as the higher courts. This is so simply because of the volume of cases before district courts. The district court is a conveyor belt. District judges tend to stamp their own style in their courts and how they want things ran.

And yes appeals and judicial reviews are very common too.

Cody Pomeray

The point I am about to make is not quite the same thing as ruling on the preponderence of evidence where the criminal burden is required, but I think it might be relevant.

There are cases where the burden of proof shifts quite early in the prosecution in Irish law, eg tv licences, school attendance, which are more likely to end up in the district courts. Further, it is still a legitimate exercise for the Irish courts to shift the burden of proof, by having regard to the peculiar knowledge principle. Again, I suggest this might be more likely to arise in the district court than in others.

McCrack uses a useful conveyor belt analogy, which is part of the inevitable, true, and informal answer to your question. We all know this happens. No group of individuals diminish public confidence in the Irish courts like the district judges... in my opinion.

Pro Hoc Vice

surenow wrote: »

Hi, second year llb student here and I am confused with the evidentiary procedures in the District Court.

I searched the forum for similar issues and as I am new to boards I apologise to any mod's if it was answered already.

I have not come across it in College but reading local newspaper reports. It seems to me that rather than beyond reasonable doubt the district court relies on preponderance of evidence.

For example, I read recently, X accused Y of threatening him with a knife. X called the Gardai and they searched Y but found no knife. They found a knife in the vicinity and X identified it as the knife he was threatened with. It was not in the possession of Y. Y was convicted.

We have mostly studied the Hight Court, Central Criminal Court and Supreme Court so I am wondering is evidentiary procedure more lax in the lower courts. It seems to me that such cases could easily be quashed on appeal?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

It is an error many make, but there would be sufficient evidence for a finding of guilt in my opinion.

It must be remembered even in very serious cases the only evidence is that given by the victim. Many a rape case is brought and the only evidence is the victim saying it happened, often the physical evidence says little or nothing, there is rarely a independent eye witness. Often there is acceptance that sex occurred but the only evidence as to lack of consent is the evidence of the victim.