friend says her personnal inury claim was thrown out because she exaggerated claim ?

jessie jane

hi
my friend had a minor accident 2 years ago at a roundabout,another cat tipped her car causing very minor damage.she was ok,but was told by her husband to play up to it and go to doctors etc....
she got a damn good offer from the injurys board,which she refused because she got greedy,even through she had nothing wrong with her.we told her to take the offer and leave it at that.Her solicitor says she will get her even more money,but I think she was trying to milk it for herself.more money for her if she brings the case to court.
Then her solicitor started court proceedings and eventully she had a meeting with the other-side,who they say had proof she was not as bad as she was making out and had a statement from the woman who tipped her in the carpark and that woman was willing to go to court.
she is wishing now to took the first offer and run.....
can this happen and is it common now for insurance companys to look into exaggerated claims?

Phil_Lives

As someone whose insurance ncb was lost because a tosser decided to concoct a story about a sore neck all I can say is Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha. Serves the cow right!

Pro Hoc Vice

jessie jane wrote: »

hi
my friend had a minor accident 2 years ago at a roundabout,another cat tipped her car causing very minor damage.she was ok,but was told by her husband to play up to it and go to doctors etc....
she got a damn good offer from the injurys board,which she refused because she got greedy,even through she had nothing wrong with her.we told her to take the offer and leave it at that.Her solicitor says she will get her even more money,but I think she was trying to milk it for herself.more money for her if she brings the case to court.
Then her solicitor started court proceedings and eventully she had a meeting with the other-side,who they say had proof she was not as bad as she was making out and had a statement from the woman who tipped her in the carpark and that woman was willing to go to court.
she is wishing now to took the first offer and run.....
can this happen and is it common now for insurance companys to look into exaggerated claims?

It's very common, I have seen cases, the insurance company looked at Facebook, employed investigators and looked in detail into past claims and medical history.

Snake

You want to commit insurance fraud?


Hey you should give me her name and address im writing a new phone book

ABajaninCork

Of course it is! Insurance companies have a duty to mitigate their losses. Did you really think they'd just pay up and that's the end of it? Serves the greedy cow right. Did she have to pay the other side's legal bills too?

Santa Cruz

jessie jane wrote: »

hi
my friend had a minor accident 2 years ago at a roundabout,another cat tipped her car causing very minor damage.she was ok,but was told by her husband to play up to it and go to doctors etc....
she got a damn good offer from the injurys board,which she refused because she got greedy,even through she had nothing wrong with her.we told her to take the offer and leave it at that.Her solicitor says she will get her even more money,but I think she was trying to milk it for herself.more money for her if she brings the case to court.
Then her solicitor started court proceedings and eventully she had a meeting with the other-side,who they say had proof she was not as bad as she was making out and had a statement from the woman who tipped her in the carpark and that woman was willing to go to court.
she is wishing now to took the first offer and run.....
can this happen and is it common now for insurance companys to look into exaggerated claims?

Hopefully she will be hit for all legal costs. Insurance companies employ Accident investigators and Private Investigators to check claims. I'd say they saw your friend coming a mile away

strandroad

jessie jane wrote: »

can this happen and is it common now for insurance companys to look into exaggerated claims?

Of course, they want to avoid payouts and will check all claims, especially a fairly obvious scam your friend was trying to pull off.

jessie jane

I don't agree with what she done myself,but people must be very foolish to think insurance companys are not going to look into accidents that involve a slight "tip" resulting in serious injuries and mental injuries.

jackboy

You should report this info to the guards. She has broken the law and people like her are the reason why insurance is so high.

kbell

Phil_Lives wrote: »

As someone whose insurance ncb was lost because a tosser decided to concoct a story about a sore neck all I can say is Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha, Haha. Serves the cow right!

Same happened to me when I had a tip with a northern driver 15 years ago.
Absolutely delighted for the op's friend!!

Bepolite

Private investigators are frequently and effectively used.

Edit: Frankly Facebook et al has made the job childsplay.

Meauldsegosha

Bepolite wrote: »

Private investigators are frequently and effectively used.

Edit: Frankly Facebook et al has made the job childsplay.

Very true. I worked as a secretary in an investigation company about 20 years ago and 90% for the work was from insurance claims.

OP did your friend really think that her "word" would be accepted as the truth? Of course the insurance company are going to investigate. They see cases like this everyday and are wise to the tricks people play.

Bepolite

Meauldsegosha wrote: »

Very true. I worked as a secretary in an investigation company about 20 years ago and 90% for the work was from insurance claims.

OP did your friend really think that her "word" would be accepted as the truth? Of course the insurance company are going to investigate. They see cases like this everyday and are wise to the tricks people play.

People also don't seem to relaise the effect of being on the reciving end of a good barrister in cross-examination mode. While I do feel for people who are genuinely injured IMO it's a thing of beauty watching some of them getting to the truth.

V.W.L 11

jessie jane wrote: »

hi
my friend had a minor accident 2 years ago at a roundabout,another cat tipped her car causing very minor damage.she was ok,but was told by her husband to play up to it and go to doctors etc....
she got a damn good offer from the injurys board,which she refused because she got greedy,even through she had nothing wrong with her.we told her to take the offer and leave it at that.Her solicitor says she will get her even more money,but I think she was trying to milk it for herself.more money for her if she brings the case to court.
Then her solicitor started court proceedings and eventully she had a meeting with the other-side,who they say had proof she was not as bad as she was making out and had a statement from the woman who tipped her in the carpark and that woman was willing to go to court.
she is wishing now to took the first offer and run.....
can this happen and is it common now for insurance companys to look into exaggerated claims?

Looks like the cat got the cream and not the OP's friend :pac:

strandroad

jessie jane wrote: »

I don't agree with what she done myself,but people must be very foolish to think insurance companys are not going to look into accidents that involve a slight "tip" resulting in serious injuries and mental injuries.

Yep your friend is not the brightest. And she's quite a horrible person too, to drag the other woman through this for years...

Little CuChulainn

A couple of years a go I watched a barrister for Quinn tear apart two claimants on the stand. both walked away with nothing. The third one settles for a much lower sum than had been offered before the case. It was incredibly satisfying, particularly as all three had demanded ambulances on the day and tied up the resources of the HSE in the region for a good few hours.

Arbiter of Good Taste

OP, your friend is an a$$hole

aunt aggie

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

A couple of years a go I watched a barrister for Quinn tear apart two claimants on the stand. both walked away with nothing. The third one settles for a much lower sum than had been offered before the case. It was incredibly satisfying, particularly as all three had demanded ambulances on the day and tied up the resources of the HSE in the region for a good few hours.

What is wrong with people that they immediately think Hey I've won the lotto here!? Grand going to the doctors next day for a check up but calling a ****ing ambulance when you're capable of walking away is disgusting. I used to live in the middle of nowhere in the west of ireland - ambulance coming to get my granny would take up to forty minutes and the crew knew our house so well they didn't need directions. In our area, anyone calling an ambulance who doesn't need it is actually putting someone else's life at risk.

Those people should be charged for all the expenses their rubbish claims resulted in.

Andy-Pandy

People like your friend annoy the hell out of me. It makes good honest people feel like they are con men when an accident happens. Someone went into my mum last week in similar circumstances, she was sitting at a roundabout when someone went into the back of her. She had major back surgery in January and this has caused her to have pain once again after finally having a pain free back. Peoples first reaction was to tell her to claim, she is an honest lady and this put her off seeking help as she doesn't want people to think she is a fraud. She is going for a MRI this week so I have gotten in touch with a solicitor friend of mine to at least make sure her bills are covered, all she wants is not to be left in constant agonising pain again.

Snake

aunt aggie wrote: »

What is wrong with people that they immediately think Hey I've won the lotto here!? Grand going to the doctors next day for a check up but calling a ****ing ambulance when you're capable of walking away is disgusting. I used to live in the middle of nowhere in the west of ireland - ambulance coming to get my granny would take up to forty minutes and the crew knew our house so well they didn't need directions. In our area, anyone calling an ambulance who doesn't need it is actually putting someone else's life at risk.

Those people should be charged for all the expenses their rubbish claims resulted in.

Anyone who calls an ambulance who doesn't need it should be given a reason to call one. The fire brigade charge 500 euro for calling them out for no reason ambulance should do the same, if they don't already.

Little CuChulainn

aunt aggie wrote: »

What is wrong with people that they immediately think Hey I've won the lotto here!? Grand going to the doctors next day for a check up but calling a ****ing ambulance when you're capable of walking away is disgusting. I used to live in the middle of nowhere in the west of ireland - ambulance coming to get my granny would take up to forty minutes and the crew knew our house so well they didn't need directions. In our area, anyone calling an ambulance who doesn't need it is actually putting someone else's life at risk.

Those people should be charged for all the expenses their rubbish claims resulted in.

It was quite a performance piece on the side of the road too. All the moaning in agony. One even threw up a little. The whole thing was a set up. They piled into a car, hit the back of someone and sued their own driver.

aunt aggie

But if these people are found to have exaggerated and made up claims can they be hit with expenses from the HSE as well as legal fees? Anyone know the answer?

I was very young I had my first and only tip and I realised straight away that I was at fault. I got out and had to calm down the girl involved who was younger than me again, only in Leaving Cert at the time. All was going well until her daddy shows up and says that car is probably a write off and it might run up to 4000 euros. I was very young and he really intimidated me. It says a lot about small town Ireland that once my father got involved, the cost of fixing her bumper was less than 500 euros.

Days 298

This has made my day. Had a lovely line there but I am afraid your friend my sue me for slander which destroyed her personal reputation and her future career potential.

Just tell her I am laughing at her anyway cheers.

Days 298

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It was quite a performance piece on the side of the road too. All the moaning in agony. One even threw up a little. The whole thing was a set up. They piled into a car, hit the back of someone and sued their own driver.

Poor things probably all got whiplash :pac:. Seriously hope the innocent driver in front was alright. Amazing the things people do for a quick buck rather than earn it like the rest.

Satriale

jessie jane wrote: »

hi
my friend had a minor accident 2 years ago at a roundabout,another cat tipped her car causing very minor damage.she was ok,but was told by her husband to play up to it and go to doctors etc....
she got a damn good offer from the injurys board,which she refused because she got greedy,even through she had nothing wrong with her.we told her to take the offer and leave it at that.Her solicitor says she will get her even more money,but I think she was trying to milk it for herself.more money for her if she brings the case to court.
Then her solicitor started court proceedings and eventully she had a meeting with the other-side,who they say had proof she was not as bad as she was making out and had a statement from the woman who tipped her in the carpark and that woman was willing to go to court.
she is wishing now to took the first offer and run.....
can this happen and is it common now for insurance companys to look into exaggerated claims?

If your "friend" cant even get the story straight in a post, i'd hate to see what "she" will be like in front of a barrister and a judge.

Bepolite

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

A couple of years a go I watched a barrister for Quinn tear apart two claimants on the stand. both walked away with nothing. The third one settles for a much lower sum than had been offered before the case. It was incredibly satisfying, particularly as all three had demanded ambulances on the day and tied up the resources of the HSE in the region for a good few hours.

Keith Spencer on top form is one of my favourites, despite him [posiong around in that Porche. "Don't try and fix it now Guard" after a particually bad witness preceding gave me a bit of a smirk.

K.Flyer

jessie jane wrote: »

.......
can this happen and is it common now for insurance companys to look into exaggerated claims ?

I think the correct term is Attempted Fraud.
Just wait until her insurance policy is up for renewal.

mightyreds

The offer from the injuries board has to be accepted by both party's so i'd say if she did accept, the other party wouldn't have, cause they seem to have her lies sussed!

Bepolite

K.Flyer wrote: »

I think the correct term is Attempted Fraud.
Just wait until her insurance policy is up for renewal.

Perjury is another the OP's friend should probably familiarise themselves with also.

Little CuChulainn

Bepolite wrote: »

Keith Spencer on top form is one of my favourites, despite him [posiong around in that Porche. "Don't try and fix it now Guard" after a particually bad witness preceding gave me a bit of a smirk.

I think you misunderstood my stance. I think barristers tearing apart witnesses in criminal trials are pretty much scum, especially the victims.

Bepolite

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my stance. I think barristers tearing apart witnesses in criminal trials are pretty much scum, especially the victims.

So it would be better that a 'victim' who is falsely accusing someone gets off with a pat on the head and someone suffers a miscarraige of justice becuase the potential of hurt feelings?

We have an adversarial system becuase it works. I'm trying to remember that democracy quote about it being an awful system but the better than the alternatives.

The case I refer to above involved a guy who was 5'4 10 stone dripping wet being accused of beating up a much larger girl. Transpired she had gone at him with a bottle and he;d pinned her up against the wall. Guards turned up, jumped to a conclusion and arrested the guy.

Santa Cruz

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my stance. I think barristers tearing apart witnesses in criminal trials are pretty much scum, especially the victims.

That's what defence barristers are paid to do and it's what you would want them to do if you are an accused.

hullaballoo

I was going to close this thread on the basis that it could come to the attention of someone involved in the case or AGS but...


Meh.

TimeToShine

Move it to Motors, they'll love it.

Little CuChulainn

Bepolite wrote: »

So it would be better that a 'victim' who is falsely accusing someone gets off with a pat on the head and someone suffers a miscarraige of justice becuase the potential of hurt feelings?

We have an adversarial system becuase it works. I'm trying to remember that democracy quote about it being an awful system but the better than the alternatives.

The case I refer to above involved a guy who was 5'4 10 stone dripping wet being accused of beating up a much larger girl. Transpired she had gone at him with a bottle and he;d pinned her up against the wall. Guards turned up, jumped to a conclusion and arrested the guy.

We have an adversarial system because it's what the Brits left us with and the people involved in it make too much money to want to change it. And it often doesn't work, nor is it better than all the alternatives.

You can quote the odd bad prosecution if you want. I reckon I could match each one you quote with 5 more where a criminal got off. In most cases barristers are merely trying to trip people up or make them look stupid in order to get someone off with a crime they did commit.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

That's what defence barristers are paid to do and it's what you would want them to do if you are an accused.

Would I? I guess you know me better than I do. I would have thought a barristers job was to make sure his client got a fair trial as opposed to trying to taint good evidence. I'm probably just a little idealistic.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

We have an adversarial system because it's what the Brits left us with and the people involved in it make too much money to want to change it. And it often doesn't work, nor is it better than all the alternatives.

You can quote the odd bad prosecution if you want. I reckon I could match each one you quote with 5 more where a criminal got off. In most cases barristers are merely trying to trip people up or make them look stupid in order to get someone off with a crime they did commit.



Would I? I guess you know me better than I do. I would have thought a barristers job was to make sure his client got a fair trial as opposed to trying to taint good evidence. I'm probably just a little idealistic.

Have you watched a real criminal trial or been involved in one. It's a huge risk to attack a victim and no good barrister would just attack a victim without huge supporting evidence for such a line of questioning. Fact it also rape and victims of sexual crimes have strong statutory protection against such questioning.

In the circuit criminal court barristers present the case for the state and barristers challange that evidence it's not usually about tainting evidence it's about challenging it within the rules of evidence and introducing doubt. The vast majority of cases at all levels are pleas of guilty in any case.

Little CuChulainn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Have you watched a real criminal trial or been involved in one. It's a huge risk to attack a victim and no good barrister would just attack a victim without huge supporting evidence for such a line of questioning. Fact it also rape and victims of sexual crimes have strong statutory protection against such questioning.

Yes I have. And I watched a defence barrister tear into a rape victim who's attacker subsequently was found not guilty of the rape. He was one of the few people I have met in my life who I would describe as evil.

Bepolite

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

We have an adversarial system because it's what the Brits left us with and the people involved in it make too much money to want to change it. And it often doesn't work, nor is it better than all the alternatives.

You can quote the odd bad prosecution if you want. I reckon I could match each one you quote with 5 more where a criminal got off. In most cases barristers are merely trying to trip people up or make them look stupid in order to get someone off with a crime they did commit.

Our system works on the basis it's better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to prison, such is the value placed on liberty. I wouldn't want to live in any other society to be honest but feel free to move to Iran or China That said 90% of people plead guilty in Ireland.

The adversirial system has been adopted/devleoped in many civil law countries, such as Spain, for Criminal cases despite the inquisitorial system used in civil cases.

Bepolite

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yes I have. And I watched a defence barrister tear into a rape victim who's attacker subsequently was found not guilty of the rape. He was one of the few people I have met in my life who I would describe as evil.

They are, rightly, constrianed by the rules of evidence and legislation to attempt to balance the rights of the victim against the right of the accused to a robust defence.

I doubt there is a barrister out there who relishes cross-examining an alleged rape victim.

I suspect there are a few who, rightly, feel a sense of satisfaction in ensuring an innocent person goes free.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yes I have. And I watched a defence barrister tear into a rape victim who's attacker subsequently was found not guilty of the rape. He was one of the few people I have met in my life who I would describe as evil.

To attack a witness in such a case you need permission of the judge and the fact that 12 ordinary people found the accused not guilty makes me ask was that barrister correct. Not all who claim they are victims are.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/26/trainee-barrister-jailed-false-rape-claims

I bet if the trial against her parter had went ahead you would have had an issue if his barrister attacked that victim.

The_Honeybadger

jessie jane wrote: »

hi
my friend had a minor accident 2 years ago at a roundabout,another cat tipped her car causing very minor damage.she was ok,but was told by her husband to play up to it and go to doctors etc....
she got a damn good offer from the injurys board,which she refused because she got greedy,even through she had nothing wrong with her.we told her to take the offer and leave it at that.Her solicitor says she will get her even more money,but I think she was trying to milk it for herself.more money for her if she brings the case to court.
Then her solicitor started court proceedings and eventully she had a meeting with the other-side,who they say had proof she was not as bad as she was making out and had a statement from the woman who tipped her in the carpark and that woman was willing to go to court.
she is wishing now to took the first offer and run.....
can this happen and is it common now for insurance companys to look into exaggerated claims?

Your friend is the reason insurance premiums are so high for you and for the rest of us. I hope they catch her out and she is hit with legal costs as well.

geeky

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

People like your friend annoy the hell out of me. It makes good honest people feel like they are con men when an accident happens. Someone went into my mum last week in similar circumstances, she was sitting at a roundabout when someone went into the back of her. She had major back surgery in January and this has caused her to have pain once again after finally having a pain free back. Peoples first reaction was to tell her to claim, she is an honest lady and this put her off seeking help as she doesn't want people to think she is a fraud. She is going for a MRI this week so I have gotten in touch with a solicitor friend of mine to at least make sure her bills are covered, all she wants is not to be left in constant agonising pain again.

^^^^
This in spades. It's not just the poor sod at fault for a minor RTA that suffers as a result of insurance fraud - it's legitimate victims. People like this poster's mother will be treated with scepticism rather than compassion because selfish, greedy crooks like the OP's friend decide that to cadge cash off the insurance company.

Little CuChulainn

Bepolite wrote: »

They are, rightly, constrianed by the rules of evidence and legislation to attempt to balance the rights of the victim against the right of the accused to a robust defence.

I doubt there is a barrister out there who relishes cross-examining an alleged rape victim.

I suspect there are a few who, rightly, feel a sense of satisfaction in ensuring an innocent person goes free.

Right but they'd do it either way, whether they believe their client innocent or guilty. You can claim it's their job to do that but that doesn't excuse their actions as far as I am concerned.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

To attack a witness in such a case you need permission of the judge

Are you sure you don't only need permission to attack the character or history of the victim? I'm pretty sure you don't have to have the judges permission to try and trip her up in her version of events.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

and the fact that 12 ordinary people found the accused not guilty makes me ask was that barrister correct. Not all who claim they are victims are.

This one was. The 12 ordinary people can only judge the case on what is presented to them.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/26/trainee-barrister-jailed-false-rape-claims

I bet if the trial against her parter had went ahead you would have had an issue if his barrister attacked that victim.

You keep making these assumptions about me. The case didn't even go to court. In fact, it's prime evidence that a more investigation focused system would be better.

Bepolite wrote: »

Our system works on the basis it's better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to prison, such is the value placed on liberty. I wouldn't want to live in any other society to be honest but feel free to move to Iran or China That said 90% of people plead guilty in Ireland.

Why would I move to one of those countries? Because I want a reformed justice system? Yeah, that will make things better in this country. Throw out anyone who doesn't like the status quo.

tdmci

Even she gets money in this fraudulent illegal way it will never do her any good!! Hope she doesn't get a cent and is left to pay all legal fees - she might think twice before trying to carry out fraud - it is me and you that are paying her compensation claims in our premiums which are on the up!

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Right but they'd do it either way, whether they believe their client innocent or guilty. You can claim it's their job to do that but that doesn't excuse their actions as far as I am concerned.



Are you sure you don't only need permission to attack the character or history of the victim? I'm pretty sure you don't have to have the judges permission to try and trip her up in her version of events.



This one was. The 12 ordinary people can only judge the case on what is presented to them.



You keep making these assumptions about me. The case didn't even go to court. In fact, it's prime evidence that a more investigation focused system would be better.



Why would I move to one of those countries? Because I want a reformed justice system? Yeah, that will make things better in this country. Throw out anyone who doesn't like the status quo.

Trying to trip a person up is not attacking a witness it is testing the evidence. Such a witness will have the assistance of a trained Garda before and during the trial and usually the help of an advocacy group.

12 ordinary people do only judge the evidence presented the state present it the defence challange they rarely present evidence and in your example they did not present any evidence.

In the UK case the matter went to court but it did not go to trial and the accused had spent 37 days in custody because of false allegations. The investigation allowed the case to go to the very court before a Noelle was entered.

I have seen numerous trials and have not seen one in which a victim was attacked, I have seen numerous where their version of events was challenged and by the rules if the accused has a different version to the accused that must be put to the accused clearly.

gctest50

tdmci wrote: »

Even she gets money in this fraudulent illegal way it will never do her any good!! Hope she doesn't get a cent and is left to pay all legal fees - she might think twice before trying to carry out fraud - it is me and you that are paying her compensation claims in our premiums which are on the up!

just like the profits

67 million up to 137 million ? someone deserved a nice bonus


AXA:

31st Dec 12

• €1.7 billion assets
• €137.4 million profit

31st Dec 11

• €1.7 billion assets
• €67.2 million profit

Little CuChulainn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Trying to trip a person up is not attacking a witness it is testing the evidence. Such a witness will have the assistance of a trained Garda before and during the trial and usually the help of an advocacy group.

12 ordinary people do only judge the evidence presented the state present it the defence challange they rarely present evidence and in your example they did not present any evidence.

In the UK case the matter went to court but it did not go to trial and the accused had spent 37 days in custody because of false allegations. The investigation allowed the case to go to the very court before a Noelle was entered.

I have seen numerous trials and have not seen one in which a victim was attacked, I have seen numerous where their version of events was challenged and by the rules if the accused has a different version to the accused that must be put to the accused clearly.

I'm glad to see you only have joyful memories of court cases. In the case I saw, the guy raped and assaulted his wife. He took pictures of her and even admitted raping her to a Garda. He had previous for breaching orders and assaulting her. None of this stuff could not be presented to the jury and to add to this the barrister threw in her own little conclusions during cross examination to make the victim seem like a liar, which she obviously apologised politely for afterwards. The whole thing was a farce. The defence barrister knew her client was a rapist and still made the victim look like a fool. I can see no justification for that.

You brought up that one case in some attempt to make it seem like I would rather see an innocent man go down rather than question a victim. It's just a strawman though. That's not what I said and I think you know that. If anything, the case you quoted proves a more investigation focused system would be better. You can bring up as many cases as you want to show when the system works and I can bring up more to show when it doesn't but you're just avoiding my original point.

Pat Mustard

In a criminal prosecution, lawyers are all that stand between the accused and the power of the State. It is essential that they do their jobs properly. People can end up in prison if they do not.

Defence barristers are supposed to attack the State's evidence. If a witness is upset as a result, that's unfortunate, but the job has to be done regardless. A defence lawyer has to defend his client. There is nothing wrong or blameworthy about it. Not doing the job properly is the only sin here.

Attacking a witness who is a victim of crime isn't something that is entered into lightly. It is a strategy that can and does backfire, but Counsel has a job to do, whether or not it is unpleasant.

Here is an example of criticism from the bench in relation to attacking the victim:

Judge Ó Donnabháin said of the treatment of Eric Higgins, the financial victim in last month’s trial: "I have never seen such efforts [by a defence] to publicly humiliate a person as was made against Mr Higgins in the witness box."

The judge was not pleased.

Little CuChulainn

The Mustard wrote: »

In a criminal prosecution, lawyers are all that stand between the accused and the power of the State. It is essential that they do their jobs properly. People can end up in prison if they do not.

Defence barristers are supposed to attack the State's evidence. If a witness is upset as a result, that's unfortunate, but the job has to be done regardless. A defence lawyer has to defend his client. There is nothing wrong or blameworthy about it. Not doing the job properly is the only sin here.

Attacking a witness who is a victim of crime isn't something that is entered into lightly. It is a strategy that can and does backfire, but Counsel has a job to do, whether or not it is unpleasant.

Here is an example of criticism from the bench in relation to attacking the victim:


The judge was not pleased.

And what happened to the barrister in question? I guess we just disagree on what the job of a barrister should be. I believe it should be to ensure their client gets a fair trial and the truth is established. You believe it should be to attack the prosecutions case.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

And what happened to the barrister in question? I guess we just disagree on what the job of a barrister should be. I believe it should be to ensure their client gets a fair trial and the truth is established. You believe it should be to attack the prosecutions case.

How can you get a fair trial and establish the truth without attacking the case presented.

Pat Mustard

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I believe it should be to ensure their client gets a fair trial and the truth is established. You believe it should be to attack the prosecutions case.

It's the judge's job to ensure a fair trial.

The job of the defence is to defend. It's that simple.