Landmark ruling & its' impact on future Garda inquiries

kerry4sam

Would anyone else know of (m)any other cases that would be affected by this landmark ruling?

I think it is about time that those brought in to any Garda station for questioning has more 'legal' guidance and support that previously held. It's about time that all questioning take place after proper legal advice, and not just in-front of full-time members of An Garda Síochána on their advice, even after a solicitor has been requested.

THE Supreme Court has questioned the necessity for some so-called dawn raids by gardai ... which questioned the necessity for some early morning arrests when it could take several hours for a solicitor to arrive at a garda statio

& I would question that necessity also. At least it is being given the going-through at the right level now.

Policing expert Dermot Walsh, professor of law at Kent University, said

the ruling is a judgment of major significance.

"Legal advice is essential to protect vulnerable suspects against the risk of being pressurised into convicting themselves in the secret and alien environment of the garda custody cell, thereby rendering a subsequent public trial with its checks and balances effectively peripheral," he said

.

Thanks,
kerry4sam

Zambia

Quite frankly its Bollox

I am making a few assumptions about the irish legal system here but they are in no way wild.

The accused is in all cases given his right to silence. He does not have to answer any questions. He has the right to make a further statement in relation to the matter at a later time.

I assume he is given a record of the interview so he can no comment the entire thing and at his leisure sit down with his solicitor and submit his answers.

If the arrested person is discovered to be a complete cretin and incapable of understanding the caution any good solicitor can have the interview thrown out.

Think to yourself no matter how foriegn an environment is to you will you admit to raping someone (or some other crime) you didnt? No amount of word play can do that. Now if you did do it please don't ask me to excuse your conviction because you told the truth. While you don't have to incriminate yourself its not the Gardas issue you did.

The Judiciary should be careful least they be so clever it is impossible to arrest & charge anyone, what the point of the caution other wise. I mean if you want to take it that far every time a garda pulls someone over he can demand his solicitor attend roadside prior to speaking with the officer.

After you have been charged, the Garda must caution you with the following words: "You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence."

source

Every person arrested is cautioned as they are arrested. When brought back to the station they are read a notice of rights, and are provided a copy in whatever language they request. Part of that notice states that they are entitled to consult with a solicitor and if they wish to waive that right they are not precluded from requesting one at a later stage.

Before every interview the member in charge, advises them again that they are not obliged to say anything unless they wish to do so. They are also advised the interview will be recorded unless they request for it not to be. Once the interview is completed, they are provided with three tapes of the interview, and asked to pick one. This becomes the master recording and a copy of this can be requested.

The reason for dawn raids, is not to stop people consulting with their solicitors. It is done so the members conducting the raid will have some chance of catching the suspect in their bed and not out at the shops or down the bookies. There's no point in raiding a house at 2 or 3 in the afternoon when the suspect will more than likely be out. You hit the house at a time you're sure he/she will be there, and that is usually the middle of the night.

It is another pointless judgement in a litany of pointless judgements we've seen recently. Sometimes I think the judiciary are purposely trying to make the job impossible for AGS to do.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1987/en/si/0119.html#zzsi119y1987a8

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Treatment_in_custody_regulations

McCrack

It's not as simple for guards to just tell a person arrested they do not have to say anything but anything you do say blah blah because depending on the particular circumstances and legislation inferences can be drawn from silence.

It's a fundamental right that people arrested have access to independent legal advice and that's what this judgment is about. We are behind Europe in that regard as solicitors do not have a right to be present during questioning. That will change I think in the not too distant future.

Pro Hoc Vice

Zambia wrote: »

Quite frankly its Bollox

I am making a few assumptions about the irish legal system here but they are in no way wild.

The accused is in all cases given his right to silence. He does not have to answer any questions. He has the right to make a further statement in relation to the matter at a later time.

I assume he is given a record of the interview so he can no comment the entire thing and at his leisure sit down with his solicitor and submit his answers.

If the arrested person is discovered to be a complete cretin and incapable of understanding the caution any good solicitor can have the interview thrown out.

Think to yourself no matter how foriegn an environment is to you will you admit to raping someone (or some other crime) you didnt? No amount of word play can do that. Now if you did do it please don't ask me to excuse your conviction because you told the truth. While you don't have to incriminate yourself its not the Gardas issue you did.

The Judiciary should be careful least they be so clever it is impossible to arrest & charge anyone, what the point of the caution other wise. I mean if you want to take it that far every time a garda pulls someone over he can demand his solicitor attend roadside prior to speaking with the officer.

After you have been charged, the Garda must caution you with the following words: "You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence."

The right to silence is a very real and important right, even many solicitors do not fully understand why silence is golden. But it is vital a person is made fully aware of his right and why silence is important.

I assume you have never ran a jury trial, as if you did you would fully understand why the only answer to give guilty or innocent to a Garda question is "no comment" there is no if buts or maybe, if the inferences are invoked then that is a different matter, but that requires further specific legal advice.

Pro Hoc Vice

source wrote: »

Every person arrested is cautioned as they are arrested. When brought back to the station they are read a notice of rights, and are provided a copy in whatever language they request. Part of that notice states that they are entitled to consult with a solicitor and if they wish to waive that right they are not precluded from requesting one at a later stage.

Before every interview the member in charge, advises them again that they are not obliged to say anything unless they wish to do so. They are also advised the interview will be recorded unless they request for it not to be. Once the interview is completed, they are provided with three tapes of the interview, and asked to pick one. This becomes the master recording and a copy of this can be requested.

The reason for dawn raids, is not to stop people consulting with their solicitors. It is done so the members conducting the raid will have some chance of catching the suspect in their bed and not out at the shops or down the bookies. There's no point in raiding a house at 2 or 3 in the afternoon when the suspect will more than likely be out. You hit the house at a time you're sure he/she will be there, and that is usually the middle of the night.

It is another pointless judgement in a litany of pointless judgements we've seen recently. Sometimes I think the judiciary are purposely trying to make the job impossible for AGS to do.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1987/en/si/0119.html#zzsi119y1987a8

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Treatment_in_custody_regulations

Like all issues in life there are two points, but if a person has invoked their right to a solicitor they should not be questioned until one arrives. No matter what a person is cautioned, very few (including lawyers) really understand why staying quiet is important.

Most people do not understand that if they say nothing then any record if that interview questions and answers is not put to the judge or judge and jury. If on the other hand any question is answered that question and answer is put to the judge or judge or jury, as well as the video tape being played. A solicitor in ireland does not sit in on the interview so its vital that any good solicitor is afforded time to explain to the accused the importance of not saying anything.

It also must be remembered during an investigation the state has at its disposal all the resources of AGS and labs etc. The Garda during questioning is in his work place and is used to the system, the accused has bee arrested and denied his liberty, requires permission to eat or drink and to use a toilet. While entitled to breaks is just sitting in a chair sometimes in overalls, being asked question after question. The only resource the accused has is one solicitor, before the arrest prob had no idea what this was about, and can be kept in custody depending for some time.

Victor

Zambia wrote: »

I assume he is given a record of the interview so he can no comment the entire thing and at his leisure sit down with his solicitor and submit his answers.

I get the impression that only the solicitor, not the accused can access the record of the interview - to (a) stop it being used by criminal bosses / associates to check what was said and (b) stop the video being used for recreational purposes.

source wrote: »

The reason for dawn raids, is not to stop people consulting with their solicitors. It is done so the members conducting the raid will have some chance of catching the suspect in their bed and not out at the shops or down the bookies.

It also catches people unawares, which is important for high risk arrests - the person is less capable of resisting both arrest and questioning.

infosys wrote: »

Like all issues in life there are two points, but if a person has invoked their right to a solicitor they should not be questioned until one arrives.

But what happens if someone is arrested on a Sunday night, can be held for 12 hours and the solicitor takes his own precious time in arriving?

Are arrestees entitled to "legal advice" or "legal advice of their choice"?

Pro Hoc Vice

Victor wrote: »

I get the impression that only the solicitor, not the accused can access the record of the interview - to (a) stop it being used by criminal bosses / associates to check what was said and (b) stop the video being used for recreational purposes.

It can only be accessed by the accused and his legal team after a court application but that only applies to the video recording of interview.

Any transcript should be part of the Gary Doyle order if DC or the book of evidence in Circuit Court. If not there then should be part of unused materials given again after court order.

Santa Cruz

Let the justice system not rely on any admissions. If there is other evidence well and good and if not let the prisoner go. Then everyone arm themselves and be prepared to defend their lives and property because there is no chance that the police will be able to do.

Bepolite

It's about time we stopped dancing around trying to find ways to maintain the status quo and allowed solicitors to be present in the interview room if requested by the client. We could then remove this situation where the interview never presented because the savvy criminal says nothing.

The problem is this would result in high legal aid payments so I can't see it ever happening.

Pro Hoc Vice

Bepolite wrote: »

It's about time we stopped dancing around trying to find ways to maintain the status quo and allowed solicitors to be present in the interview room if requested by the client. We could then remove this situation where the interview never presented because the savvy criminal says nothing.

The problem is this would result in high legal aid payments so I can't see it ever happening.

Even if solicitor remains during interview any questions not answered would still not be presented unless the inferences are invoked.

Zambia

infosys wrote: »

The right to silence is a very real and important right, even many solicitors do not fully understand why silence is golden. But it is vital a person is made fully aware of his right and why silence is important.

I assume you have never ran a jury trial, as if you did you would fully understand why the only answer to give guilty or innocent to a Garda question is "no comment" there is no if buts or maybe, if the inferences are invoked then that is a different matter, but that requires further specific legal advice.

I agree with you on the suspects right to silence.

However if they can't help but unburden themselves after being told the consequences what's the issue?

Pro Hoc Vice

Zambia wrote: »

I agree with you on the suspects right to silence.

However if they can't help but unburden themselves after being told the consequences what's the issue?

Once properly advised I have no problem. I have heard someone advise a person by saying "sure if you did nothing talk away."

Carawaystick

Zambia wrote: »

Quite frankly its Bollox

I am making a few assumptions about the irish legal system here but they are in no way wild.

The accused is in all cases given his right to silence. He does not have to answer any questions. He has the right to make a further statement in relation to the matter at a later time.
...

Think to yourself no matter how foriegn an environment is to you will you admit to raping someone (or some other crime) you didnt? No amount of word play can do that. Now if you did do it please don't ask me to excuse your conviction because you told the truth. While you don't have to incriminate yourself its not the Gardas issue you did.

The Judiciary should be careful least they be so clever it is impossible to arrest & charge anyone, what the point of the caution other wise. I mean if you want to take it that far every time a garda pulls someone over he can demand his solicitor attend roadside prior to speaking with the officer.

After you have been charged, the Garda must caution you with the following words: "You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence."

Dean Lyons was convicted of a murder he didn't commit after confessing in Garda Custody.

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

Dean Lyons was convicted of a murder he didn't commit after confessing in Garda Custody.

In fact the innocent project have stated that 25% of the people they have proven are innocent by DNA evidence (they only really deal with very serious crimes) gave a confession.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

Pat Mustard

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Let the justice system not rely on any admissions. If there is other evidence well and good and if not let the prisoner go. Then everyone arm themselves and be prepared to defend their lives and property because there is no chance that the police will be able to do.

This would not be practical.

For instance, of murder convictions, most of them have been got on the basis of confessions.

If confessions were not allowed as part of evidence, many villains would go unpunished, especially in relation to the the more serious crimes that are tried in the likes of the CCC. This is my view, in any event.

Arrest and interrogation is an unusal experience for most people. Innocent people start feeling the need to tell all sorts of details about themselves, in order to explain the circumstances which led to their arrest. Whereas, they should simply say nothing until their solicitor arrives.

Some Gardai are very good at extracting confessions in these situations. I can't remember the name of the case of the two killers in the eighties, where some Garda Sergeant said that he'd pray with the villain, and then he got him to confess to murder. I don't know whether that's genius or cold blooded, or both. But it's damned impressive police work, whatever way you look at it. Reminiscent of True Detective's Rust Cohle, if you ask me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IAnHPlzhdo

Although he does make a balls of the confession at the end.

Bepolite

infosys wrote: »

Even if solicitor remains during interview any questions not answered would still not be presented unless the inferences are invoked.

Which, I'm open to correction, is used to greater effect in E&W? Isn't there also the issue of not being able to rely on a defence not mentioned during interview (in E&W). Putting solicitors in the room wouldn't only benefit the accused, I think it would redress the balance in both directions.

Zambia

Carawaystick wrote: »

Dean Lyons was convicted of a murder he didn't commit after confessing in Garda Custody.

There is your cretin?

Zambia

infosys wrote: »

Once properly advised I have no problem. I have heard someone advise a person by saying "sure if you did nothing talk away."

That's fine IMO if you are cautioned then you are on notice. If you decide to speak afterwards regardless of what the garda says that's your issue.

It's not rocket science if you tell a garda you broke the law it should be no surprise they might charge you.

Pro Hoc Vice

Zambia wrote: »

There is your cretin?

The only cretin's in that sorry story are AGS. The real murder committed two further murders while AGS believed (despite the reservations of one Garda) they had the killer caught. Even after the killer was caught having committed two further murders AGS still would not leave the bone alone.

Its simple if questioned repeat, "On the advice of my Solicitor I am saying nothing in answer to any question"

Zambia

infosys wrote: »

The only cretin's in that sorry story are AGS. The real murder committed two further murders while AGS believed (despite the reservations of one Garda) they had the killer caught. Even after the killer was caught having committed two further murders AGS still would not leave the bone alone.

Its simple if questioned repeat, "On the advice of my Solicitor I am saying nothing in answer to any question"

Hang on, I covered the instance of mental illness in my original post. No one with a mental condition like Lyons should have been convicted on his statement.

I reckon in a trial the prosecution would be pushing sh1t uphill when their interview was thrown out. I agree that AGS maybe suffered blinkered vision on that one.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Holsten

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They will be interviewed but there is nothing in law to say they should answer anything. In some offenses within the Offences Against the State Act I believe it can be an offense in it's self to not answer.

In some circumstances inferences can be drawn from their silence.

"Inferences can be drawn, if at anytime before being charged or when you are charged, or when informed by a Garda that you may be prosecuted for the offence, you fail or refuse to account for any object, substance or mark on your person, clothing or in your possession or in any place in which you were when questioned by a Garda"

I would advise anyone arrested for anything and interviewed to say absolutely nothing. Anything you say will only help the Gardai prosecuting you.

Pro Hoc Vice

Zambia wrote: »

Hang on, I covered the instance of mental illness in my original post. No one with a mental condition like Lyons should have been convicted on his statement.

I reckon in a trial the prosecution would be pushing sh1t uphill when their interview was thrown out. I agree that AGS maybe suffered blinkered vision on that one.

Lyons spent if I remember 9 months on remand before it was accepted he did nothing. The issue with Lyons was not that a vulnerable person made admissions but that there was a number of issues pointing at the problems with the case, all ignored in a blind acceptance of the confession.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Except in cases of the inferences yes you are correct if every answer is "no comment" then as far as the judge and or jury are concerned the interview never happened.

Carawaystick

If you are going to exercise your right to silence, do the rest periods apply?
or in General, can a suspect waive the right to rest during questioning.

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

If you are going to exercise your right to silence, do the rest periods apply?
or in General, can a suspect waive the right to rest during questioning.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=5147&Lang=1

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, and funnily from what I have witnessed, if a person sits stares at a spot on the wall and repeats "no comment on the advice of my solicitor" they will usually not extend the detention.

Zambia

infosys wrote: »

Lyons spent if I remember 9 months on remand before it was accepted he did nothing. The issue with Lyons was not that a vulnerable person made admissions but that there was a number of issues pointing at the problems with the case, all ignored in a blind acceptance of the confession.

So your saying that because Lyons made admission because he had mental issues, every admission outside the presence of a solicitor should not be considered?

I can't agree because it strikes at the heart that the majority of us should have some responsibility for what we say and do. Millions of us conduct our lives without lawyers watching over us 24/7.

Example Mr a is arrested on a dawn raid and interviewed after caution as described above. Mr A was arrested on other matters.

Mr A is of sound mind but extremely remorseful over a crime he committed the day prior. He mentions to decectives that he thought they were here for the robbery he committed the day prior. Detectives establish a street robbery was committed the previous day.

Mr A is interviewed where he admits to savagely beating a woman and stealing her handbag. He ellocutes the correct street and handbag description.

No further evidence of the robbery is found. The victim cannot identify Mr A.

Mr A is remanded and decides prison is not for him and states he now did not commit the street robbery.

should the court drop all charges as his solicitor now requests?

I should add mr a did commit the robbery.

Pro Hoc Vice

Zambia wrote: »

So your saying that because Lyons made admission because he had mental issues, every admission outside the presence of a solicitor should not be considered?

I can't agree because it strikes at the heart that the majority of us should have some responsibility for what we say and do. Millions of us conduct our lives without lawyers watching over us 24/7.

Example Mr a is arrested on a dawn raid and interviewed after caution as described above. Mr A was arrested on other matters.

Mr A is of sound mind but extremely remorseful over a crime he committed the day prior. He mentions to decectives that he thought they were here for the robbery he committed the day prior. Detectives establish a street robbery was committed the previous day.

Mr A is interviewed where he admits to savagely beating a woman and stealing her handbag. He ellocutes the correct street and handbag description.

No further evidence of the robbery is found. The victim cannot identify Mr A.

Mr A is remanded and decides prison is not for him and states he now did not commit the street robbery.

should the court drop all charges as his solicitor now requests?

I should add mr a did commit the robbery.

As Mr. A when arrested did not request a solicitor and so none turned up then the conviction stands. If on the other hand Mr. A said after arrival at the station "I want a solicitor" then a interview should not proceed with out consultation with a solicitor. It's really simple.

BTW the rights we all enjoy are not their for the majority of people but are their to protect the minority who need protection.

Zambia

infosys wrote: »

As Mr. A when arrested did not request a solicitor and so none turned up then the conviction stands. If on the other hand Mr. A said after arrival at the station "I want a solicitor" then a interview should not proceed with out consultation with a solicitor. It's really simple.

BTW the rights we all enjoy are not their for the majority of people but are their to protect the minority who need protection.

So if the solicitor of choice is halfway round a set of 18 holes in Stillorgan we all just wait till he returns the call.

Pro Hoc Vice

Zambia wrote: »

So if the solicitor of choice is halfway round a set of 18 holes in Stillorgan we all just wait till he returns the call.

No, if the solicitor refuses to turn up in a reasonable time then another solicitor can be contacted, there are over 12,000 in the country. A person must have real access to protections afforded by the constitution. If there is going to be a few hours then the case allows the taking of samples while waiting for solicitors. I do not think the SC would be happy with a solicitor who says I can't turn up for 24 hours.

TheNog

kerry4sam wrote: »

& I would question that necessity also. At least it is being given the going-through at the right level now.

Sorry I can't seem to include the quote of the Supreme questioning some of the dawn raids.

Dawn raids are done with very good operational standing behind it. For me dawn raids don't highlight something crooked with AGS but it does highlight that a prisoner cannot access their solicitor 24/7.

There are some solicitors operating a 24/7 phone/service so perhaps instead of a prisoner being allowed to consult with their solicitor it should be all efforts will be made to contact your solicitor and if they cannot be contacted a solicitor will be contacted for you.

Crime does not operate from 9-5 on weekdays

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's what happens in practice. If a solicitor does not answer the call then they will offer to contact another legal aid solicitor or a solicitor nominated by the accused.

"9.13 Therefore, whatever may be the situation in other cases, it seems to me that Mr. Gormley’s case is clear. He requested a solicitor. He never withdrew that request nor could it be said that he waived his entitlement to timely legal advice in any way. He made statements, which were relied on to significant effect at his trial, before he had an opportunity to obtain the requested advice. For the reasons analysed in detail by the ECtHR in Salduz and by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda, I am satisfied that the entitlement not to self-incriminate incorporates an entitlement to legal advice in advance of mandatory questioning of a suspect in custody. In Mr. Gormley’s case that right was clearly denied. He had requested such advice, had not withdrawn any request or otherwise waived his entitlement and yet had been questioned before he had received the necessary advice. No question could arise on the facts of his case as to whether there might be an exception where it proved impractical, through no fault of any of the prosecuting authorities, to provide the advice in question. The right to a trial in due course of law encompasses a right to early access to a lawyer after arrest and the right not to be interrogated without having had an opportunity to obtain such advice. The conviction of a person wholly or significantly on the basis of evidence obtained contrary to those constitutional entitlements represents a conviction following an unfair trial process."

From the judgement.

pablo128

infosys wrote: »

The only cretin's in that sorry story are AGS. The real murder committed two further murders while AGS believed (despite the reservations of one Garda) they had the killer caught. Even after the killer was caught having committed two further murders AGS still would not leave the bone alone.

Its simple if questioned repeat, "On the advice of my Solicitor I am saying nothing in answer to any question"

Dean Lyons made a generalised admission, if you like. However, he signed 3 statements, each one more detailed than the last. The final one contained information only a person who had been inside the house would have known, such as a murderer, or an investigating guard.
I think you know where i'm going with this. And it does happen.

Zambia

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Imagine you are arrested, unless you have a soli in mind yes it's of to the yellow pages with you.


In essence most legal advice is as follows.

"Say nothing, ring me when you get out"

Sure a answering service could do that.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Zambia wrote: »

Imagine you are arrested, unless you have a soli in mind yes it's of to the yellow pages with you.


In essence most legal advice is as follows.

"Say nothing, ring me when you get out"

Sure a answering service could do that.

Yes it's very good advice, so why was the guy in the case not allowed to get it.

benway

pablo128 wrote: »

The final one contained information only a person who had been inside the house would have known, such as a murderer, or an investigating guard. I think you know where i'm going with this. And it does happen.

The very careful >report< prepared by Judge Birmingham in relation to Dean Lyons reaches the following fairly blunt conclusion:-

One is compelled, as a matter of inescapable logic, to conclude that Dean Lyons acquired the information set out by him in this statement from the Gardaí during the course of his detention.

TheNog wrote:

Sorry I can't seem to include the quote of the Supreme questioning some of the dawn raids.

It's in Hardiman's judgment. He's mainly talking about it in terms of time limits for detention and does acknowledge: "In some cases this will be necessary, but is this so in every case?"

Zambia wrote:

should the court drop all charges as his solicitor now requests?

Yes, they should. There's no complainant and no evidence whatsoever that the offence occurred save for the confession. History shows that allowing police forces to rely on confessions leads to abuses and miscarriages of justice, from the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six through the Heavy Gang cases, the Kerry Babies and Dean Lyons. While I don't think confessions should be excluded, if they are to be relied upon, as a matter of policy the accused person should be allowed access to an objective professional to advise them.

Clarke J acknowledges that in, "wholly exceptional circumstances involving a pressing and compelling need to protect other major constitutional rights such as the right to life", it might be necessary for a suspect to be questioned before their solicitor arrives, and I think this strikes a fair balance. Now, let me have a go at that.

Example Mr. A is arrested on a dawn raid and interviewed after caution as described above.

Mr. A is of sound mind but might be described as a vulnerable individual. He is tired, disorientated and intimidated by the large number of Gardaí who dragged him from his bed. On his way to the station, certain Gardaí repeatedly ask him leading questions and put to him a fairly detailed scenario in relation to the offence, using aggressive and abusive language.

When informed of his right to legal advice, Mr. A asks for a solicitor, as he above all else needs the reassurance that someone knows he's in the station.

Mr A is promptly interviewed, before the solicitor arrives, where he admits to the offence taking details from what was said to him by the Gardaí on the way to the station, as he feels that if he doesn't do so, he'll rot in this station forever and nobody will know he's there.

No further evidence to implicate Mr. A in the offence is found.

Mr A is charged with the offence.

Should the court convict him based on his confession alone?

I should add Mr. A did not commit any offence.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Then everyone arm themselves and be prepared to defend their lives and property because there is no chance that the police will be able to do.

Oh Boards, don't ever change.

OldNotWIse

Zambia wrote: »

Quite frankly its Bollox

I am making a few assumptions about the irish legal system here but they are in no way wild.

The accused is in all cases given his right to silence. He does not have to answer any questions. He has the right to make a further statement in relation to the matter at a later time.

I assume he is given a record of the interview so he can no comment the entire thing and at his leisure sit down with his solicitor and submit his answers.

If the arrested person is discovered to be a complete cretin and incapable of understanding the caution any good solicitor can have the interview thrown out.

Think to yourself no matter how foriegn an environment is to you will you admit to raping someone (or some other crime) you didnt? No amount of word play can do that. Now if you did do it please don't ask me to excuse your conviction because you told the truth. While you don't have to incriminate yourself its not the Gardas issue you did.

The Judiciary should be careful least they be so clever it is impossible to arrest & charge anyone, what the point of the caution other wise. I mean if you want to take it that far every time a garda pulls someone over he can demand his solicitor attend roadside prior to speaking with the officer.

After you have been charged, the Garda must caution you with the following words: "You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence."

Yes but dont forget that negative inferences are allowed to be drawn and tendered from said silence. And afaik (though I reserve the right to be wrong) police notes/transcripts etc are considered their own property and may not necessarily be made available to the accused or his solicitor.

Zambia

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yes but dont forget that negative inferences are allowed to be drawn and tendered from said silence. And afaik (though I reserve the right to be wrong) police notes/transcripts etc are considered their own property and may not necessarily be made available to the accused or his solicitor.

I think your wrong. The uk has the line ".it may harm your defence if you do not mention in questioning something you later rely on in court."

The garda caution omits this.

Zambia

infosys wrote: »

Yes it's very good advice, so why was the guy in the case not allowed to get it.

I don't know I was not there. Why didn't his defence get him out stating the defence case was weak, after they pointed out what we both agree was a poor case.

Sadly Lyons was a victim of his own mind.

benway

That form of caution isn't mandatory.

There's nothing to stop the Gardaí from delivering a caution including some kind of comprehensible language explaining that failure to mention a fact to be used in defence in the course of questioning might lead to inferences being drawn pursuant to to section 19A of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (as inserted by section 30 the Criminal Justice Act 2007) - the section also requires a "reasonable right" of access to a solicitor and electronic recording of the interview.

OldNotWIse

Zambia wrote: »

I think your wrong. The uk has the line ".it may harm your defence if you do not mention in questioning something you later rely on in court."

The garda caution omits this.

I'm not referring to the law in the UK, and I am pretty sure I am right. The constitutional right to silence and protection from self incrimination is not absolute. Inferences can be drawn in certain circumstances. For example, if you mention something in your defence in court that you might reasonably have been expected to disclose when charged but remained silent about. There are also certain specific offences where inferences can be drawn if you do not provide information about your whereabouts at a given time, if asked.

Zambia

Benway , there was a victim who would be the complainant. I also stated the detectives were able to look up the offence, this is how the confession was matched to a crime.

benway

If there's no complaint, there's no complainant, by definition. Not sure how you're saying that detectives "were able to look up the offence" if it hadn't been reported. We can all make up scenarios to suit our argument, as above.

Edit: Seems the bit where you say first "No further evidence of the robbery is found" but then "the victim was unable to identify" has me confused: if the victim has come forward, then there is other evidence of the robbery and a complainant. Sorry if I'm being slow here.

Zambia wrote: »

Sadly Lyons was a victim of his own mind.

As well as the fact that he was picking up prompts from the Gardaí, whether that was intentional or otherwise, the Birmingham report demonstrates that the senior Garda interviewing Lyons dismissed the misgivings of a number of colleagues, who had reached the view that the suspect was a Walter Mitty character and that his confession was unreliable.

OldNotWise wrote:

Inferences can be drawn in certain circumstances.

Sections 18, 19, 19A of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (as amended), various sections of the Offences against the State Act, 1939 (as amended), think there might be some under the Misuse of Drugs Act also, not 100% on the last one.

Pro Hoc Vice

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yes but dont forget that negative inferences are allowed to be drawn and tendered from said silence. And afaik (though I reserve the right to be wrong) police notes/transcripts etc are considered their own property and may not necessarily be made available to the accused or his solicitor.

Inferences can only be used in very limited circumstances and if invoked separate legal advice must be given.

Unused materials are sought by the defence in a application to court.

Pro Hoc Vice

benway wrote: »

That form of caution isn't mandatory.

There's nothing to stop the Gardaí from delivering a caution including some kind of comprehensible language explaining that failure to mention a fact to be used in defence in the course of questioning might lead to inferences being drawn pursuant to to section 19A of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (as inserted by section 30 the Criminal Justice Act 2007) - the section also requires a "reasonable right" of access to a solicitor and electronic recording of the interview.

Incorrect. It is a very complex area of law it can only be invoked in certain circumstances, the person must be warned in plain language the person must be afforded reasonable access to a solicitor, the inferences by themselves are not enough to ground a conviction. I have personally never seen the inferences used, it has been attempted that I have seen but never got near a court in the end in every case I have witnessed.

Pro Hoc Vice

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not referring to the law in the UK, and I am pretty sure I am right. The constitutional right to silence and protection from self incrimination is not absolute. Inferences can be drawn in certain circumstances. For example, if you mention something in your defence in court that you might reasonably have been expected to disclose when charged but remained silent about. There are also certain specific offences where inferences can be drawn if you do not provide information about your whereabouts at a given time, if asked.

Incorrect. A person is given an alibi warning but only when the matter is returned for trial and has time to invoke the alibi defence.