Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Not Guilty by direction of trial judge

  • 29-10-2014 4:23pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭


    Quick question - recently sat on a jury where, after a week of witnesses giving evidence and being shown various exhibits - the trial ended as the defendant was found Not Guilty by direction of the trial judge.

    Obviously each case is different, but out of curiosity, what does this usually mean? Could an agreement have been reached? Would the judge not have been happy with the prosecution's evidence?

    Genuinely curious after having spent a week on the jury to have it end like that!

    Thanks.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    were there any private discussions between the judge and the two legal teams that you had to leave the court for? The defence could have raised a point of law that makes the prosecution case invalid.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭JaMarcusHustle


    Beano wrote: »
    were there any private discussions between the judge and the two legal teams that you had to leave the court for? The defence could have raised a point of law that makes the prosecution case invalid.

    Yup, there were loads of these unfortunately!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Yup, there were loads of these unfortunately!

    Probably what it was then. Did the judge give any reasons for his direction?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Yup, there were loads of these unfortunately!

    There generally are - the jury would be influenced by these and that's why they are excluded. The jury is the arbiter of fact whereas the judge is the arbiter of law.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭JaMarcusHustle


    Beano wrote: »
    Probably what it was then. Did the judge give any reasons for his direction?

    None whatsoever, hence my curiosity. Truth be told, we were all a bit taken aback by just how flimsy and weak the prosecution's case was.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    None whatsoever, hence my curiosity. Truth be told, we were all a bit taken aback by just how flimsy and weak the prosecution's case was.

    My faith in the jury system is somewhat restored by this comment! Excellent OP by the way, hopefully this generates some discussion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,686 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    None whatsoever, hence my curiosity. Truth be told, we were all a bit taken aback by just how flimsy and weak the prosecution's case was.

    Had the prosecution finished presenting their case? If they had then it's standard practice for the defence to stand up and claim that there was not enough evidence to convict, did this happen in your case? If that application is successful, the judge directs the jury to find the accused not guilty.

    If the trial is stopped before the prosecution has finished presenting their case, it's usually because all or part of the evidence of a critical prosecution witness or a piece of physical evidence is excluded by the judge after legal argument (in the absence of the jury) at which point the prosecution throws in the towel because that evidence was critical to their case and there's no point in continuing with a pointless charade which they know will end with a direction before the defence has to present their case.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭JaMarcusHustle


    coylemj wrote: »
    Had the prosecution finished presenting their case? If they had then it's standard practice for the defence to stand up and claim that there was not enough evidence to convict, did this happen in your case? If that application is successful, the judge directs the jury to find the accused not guilty.

    Yes, the prosecution had finished their case yesterday evening.

    Not wanting to go in the specifics of the case, but another individual relating to the case was found guilty some time ago (having also pleaded guilty) and far too much of the prosecution's case seemed to focus on this person rather than the actual defendant of this trial. They really seemed to be taking a "guilty by association" angle, and at times you would be forgiven for thinking that the person who was already found guilty was on trial rather than the actual defendant.

    I had always (perhaps naively) assumed that if a case makes it to trial, then there was good reason for it. But I, and many of the other jurors, could not believe how weak the prosecution's case was, despite their opening statement saying they had "very strong" evidence.

    I found jury duty a very interesting experience, but I really do wish more regard was shown for the jurors time :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    I had always (perhaps naively) assumed that if a case makes it to trial, then there was good reason for it. But I, and many of the other jurors, could not believe how weak the prosecution's case was, despite their opening statement saying they had "very strong" evidence.

    And my faith is gone again - not a criticism of you personally OP but you're not alone is this assumption.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭JaMarcusHustle


    And my faith is gone again - not a criticism of you personally OP but you're not alone is this assumption.

    To be fair, I have no experience of the legal system. I don't know how it works. This was my first exposure to it.

    I wasn't naive enough to think "if they have a case, then they must be guilty" but I did go in expecting both sides to have a strong argument. Only one of them did.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,686 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    I wasn't naive enough to think "if they have a case, then they must be guilty" but I did go in expecting both sides to have a strong argument. Only one of them did.

    The prosecution may have reckoned they had a good case but you said that there was lots of discussions in the absence of the jury so by the sound of it the judge excluded a lot of the prosecution evidence and left them with the weak case that you heard.

    It's the DPP's call whether a case should go ahead or not. The case might have looked good on paper with a good chance of a conviction but clearly a lot of the evidence was ruled inadmissible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Not wanting to go in the specifics of the case, but another individual relating to the case was found guilty some time ago (having also pleaded guilty) and far too much of the prosecution's case seemed to focus on this person rather than the actual defendant of this trial. They really seemed to be taking a "guilty by association" angle,

    A verdict of manslaughter has been found in respect of a passenger in a car, where the car was stolen, and driven with criminal negligence by the driver.

    See also s.7 of the Criminal Law Act, 1997
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0014/sec0007.html

    Plenty of aspects of criminal law are counter-intuitive. This is one of them.

    Nevertheless, your guy got off. But you can appreciate the difficult line the DPP sometimes treads.

    Doctors differ, patients die -- but not in criminal law. At criminal law, both the Prosecution and the Court have to be satisfied of the basic legitimacy of a prosecution before any question is put into the hands of the judges of fact, i.e. the jury.

    In fact, the subsequent appeal court must also be satisfied with the inherent fairness of the process.

    So you have this 'triple-lock' effect.

    Seems like the process worked well. I don't share the lack of faith in the system that MarkAnthony referred to. Quite the opposite.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    what is so counter-intuitive about the piece of legislation you linked to or am i misunderstanding you?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,182 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    A directed verdict usually means that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence in relation to an essential element of the crime. Since there is no evidence of X, and since X is an essential element of the offence charged, the jury cannnot convict and, if they do, the conviction will be overturned on appeal. All this is short-circuited by the judge ruling that there is insufficient evidence on which to convict, and so directing acquittal.

    It may mean that the prosecution has stuffed up, bringing a case that they should never have brought, or it may mean that something untoward has happened - an essential witness dies suddenly, for example, so the evidence he was expected to give can't be given. Or a witness gives evidence contrary to the evidence that he was expected to give.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,686 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    A directed verdict usually means that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence in relation to an essential element of the crime.

    In most cases, they 'fail to produce' this evidence to the jury because the judge rules it inadmissible.

    Unless you're suggesting that the DPP and her staff are incompetent fools who continuously waste public money by going ahead with prosecutions that have no chance of securing a conviction.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    I would surmise they are under enormous pressure by the victim to bring cases (and rightly so) I realise there has to be a cut off but I would think the bar is low enough that the occasional sure loser makes it through.

    Pure conjecture on my part.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Beano wrote: »
    what is so counter-intuitive about the piece of legislation you linked to or am i misunderstanding you?
    Equal liability in joint enterprise is counter-intuitive.

    The principle is given statutory footing in s.7 CLA 1997.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Or a witness gives evidence contrary to the evidence that he was expected to give.
    Another Corrie fan?!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Equal liability in joint enterprise is counter-intuitive.

    The principle is given statutory footing in s.7 CLA 1997.


    Thats what i thought you meant. I'm not sure i see the issue


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,686 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Equal liability in joint enterprise is counter-intuitive.

    The principle is given statutory footing in s.7 CLA 1997.

    And before that, the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

    Specifically S.8 of the 1861 act provided that ....

    Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Beano wrote: »
    Thats what i thought you meant. I'm not sure i see the issue
    It's not "an issue". But the idea that liability can be attributed to a person because of the actions of another, is counter-intuitive.

    95% of people probably don't believe you can be convicted of manslaughter, if you didn't lay your hands on the victim, for example. Whereas, in fact, you may be equally liable as the man who struck him, if you had contemplated the beating.
    coylemj wrote: »
    And before that, the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

    Specifically S.8 of the 1861 act provided that ....

    Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender

    The law on accessories is a little different to the law of joint enterprise. They're not quite the same thing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,182 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    coylemj wrote: »
    In most cases, they 'fail to produce' this evidence to the jury because the judge rules it inadmissible.

    Unless you're suggesting that the DPP and her staff are incompetent fools who continuously waste public money by going ahead with prosecutions that have no chance of securing a conviction.
    No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I think they have a strong culture of not bringing prosecutions unless they are pretty confident that they can make out the case and secure a conviction. Where there is a directed acquittal (which is fairly rare) this is usually the result of something unforseen.

    It can the the result of stuff-up - usually a low level stuff-up by a junior, inexperienced prosecutor who has failed through nervousness and oversight to lead some evidence. This happens, but not often.

    (The court ruling evidence inadmissible, incidentally, doesn't give the state a complete pass; in deciding to bring the prosecution they must have formed the opinion that it was admissible. It's possible, depending on the facts and circumstances, that they could be open to criticism for forming that opinion.)


Advertisement