different person appears in court

horsebox7

I was in a circuit court a while ago and a man appeared on a summons for a driving offence. The gard was not satisied that the man in question was the man who he stopped at the scene. Because the gard wasnt satisfied it was him the case was dismissed. I would have thought they would have looked for some photographic ID at least? Anyone ever come across this before? The man who appeared seemed to have no english at all.

Victor

I don't frequent the courts, but saw one case where the accused's brother showed up. Everybody not impressed. Accused's brother looked very uncomfortable.

horsebox7

I can imagine.. But it sounds like he admitted to being his brother and did not impersonate the accused. From what I saw in court the alleged impersonator forced the judge into dismissing the case as the gard wasn't satisfied he was the person he dealt with at the scene. One can only hope the authorities follows this up otherwise it will set a dangerous precident.

P. Breathnach

Another possibility is that the person who appeared in court was the person named on the summons - that the person stopped by the guard was a different person who gave a the wrong name and address.

seamus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Another possibility is that the person who appeared in court was the person named on the summons - that the person stopped by the guard was a different person who gave a the wrong name and address.

Happens more often than you'd think. The person either doesn't care, or gives the name and address of someone they think would "be cool" with it.

Garda arrived at our house one night to speak to my parents about the public order offence that he had cautioned my brother about the previous night.

Except he hadn't. My brother had been at home that night, and when the Garda saw him, he realised the mistake had been made.

Turns out a householder had a load of empty beer cans dumped in their garden one night by a group of lads. Called the Gardai, who stopped the group and one of them gave my brother's name and address. They had been pretty good friends, but the relationship went very cold after that.

horsebox7

In this situation the judge asked the person who showed up if his name was that listed on the summons and the perspn agreed that this was his name.

conorh91

horsebox7 wrote: »

One can only hope the authorities follows this up otherwise it will set a dangerous precident.

The Circuit Court does not enjoy powers of binding precedent, and there is no novel question of law to be settled anyway.

The DPP (Garda) can just bring the prosecution at a later time; it sounds to me as though the prosecution was never tried. I expect that is what will happen.

seamus wrote: »

Happens more often than you'd think. The person either doesn't care, or gives the name and address of someone they think would "be cool" with it.

Garda arrived at our house one night to speak to my parents about the public order offence that he had cautioned my brother about the previous night.

Except he hadn't. My brother had been at home that night, and when the Garda saw him, he realised the mistake had been made.

Turns out a householder had a load of empty beer cans dumped in their garden one night by a group of lads. Called the Gardai, who stopped the group and one of them gave my brother's name and address. They had been pretty good friends, but the relationship went very cold after that.

Same thing happened a friend of mine. He was away in san fran on a J1 visa. A brown envelope arrives, summoning him for s.5 disorderly conduct, which it seems was a polite way of saying 'urinating at a Luas machine'.

Poor guy had to fly home from the Summer of his lifetime to attend the Bridewell, which apparently made Green Street Courthouse look like Claridge's of Mayfair. The worst thing was he never found out which of his mates had done it, but it must have been a childhood friend to be able to drunkenly recall my friend's date of birth, phone number and home address.

Not sure which was worse, the inconvenience and expense of flying home, or not knowing which of your friends has done that to you. For the record, it certainly wasn't me!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

conorh91

Forgot that bit! Yes, withdrawn or dismissed when the Court saw evidence of flights, visa, and banking activity in San Fran.

Was probably unnecessary to fly home to Dublin since he could have showed unavoidable cause, but the family was being ultra cautious about a possible criminal record.

JumpShivers

conorh91 wrote: »

Forgot that bit! Yes, withdrawn or dismissed when the Court saw evidence of flights, visa, and banking activity in San Fran.

Was probably unnecessary to fly home to Dublin since he could have showed unavoidable cause, but the family was being ultra cautious about a possible criminal record.

Should the Garda not have the power to detain someone until the have positive identification of the person in question in the form of driving license, passport or national ID card and should it not be mandatory to posses at least one of these to eliminate such things happening again.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

conorh91

JumpShivers wrote: »

Should the Garda not have the power to detain someone until the have positive identification of the person in question in the form of driving license, passport or national ID card and should it not be mandatory to posses at least one of these to eliminate such things happening again.

AGS do have powers to detain a person pending such an investigation, although using them for a s.5 public order offence would seem excessive.

I seem to recall from a separate case that AGS tend to confirm a person's details via the station. Do they perhaps have access to driving license databases and such? Of course, whatever resources they have would only prove that such and such a person exists, not that they are the person under arrest.

Peregrinus

horsebox7 wrote: »

In this situation the judge asked the person who showed up if his name was that listed on the summons and the perspn agreed that this was his name.

And since the guard's evidence was that this was not the man who had committed the offence, the charge against him had to be dismissed. But this wasn't the man who appeared "forcing" the judge to dismiss the case. The man who appeared looks to have been a victim of identity theft.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or even to possess it, except in limited circumstances. You don't have to get a driving licence unless you want to drive. You don't have to apply for a passport unless you need one for travel purposes.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

horsebox7 wrote: »

I can imagine.. But it sounds like he admitted to being his brother and did not impersonate the accused.

That would be an ecumenical matter. The person in court only offered an excuse when the prosecuting garda didn't recognise him.