How does a court case work?

evo2000

How does a court case work? and do the gardai only take it to court when they have a high chance of conviction?

MarkAnthony

It depends on the Crime and it's seriousness. The DPP handle cases in the main and there is, no doubt, an element of securing a conviction, however in some situations a case would need to be taken regardless.

As for how they work. Pop along and see!

evo2000

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It depends on the Crime and it's seriousness. The DPP handle cases in the main and there is, no doubt, an element of securing a conviction, however in some situations a case would need to be taken regardless.

As for how they work. Pop along and see!

Can anyone walk in and watch a court case? never knew that! im just wondering because someone i know has been recently been up in court and the book of evidence has been produced for a serious enough offense,

I was just wondering did book of evidence equate to high chance of guilt

My thinking was they wouldnt go to court if they didnt think they could win?

Would that be even close to accurate or is it just a common process and no real indication of guilt?

MarkAnthony

evo2000 wrote: »

Can anyone walk in and watch a court case? never knew that!

Some cases (mainly sexual) are hear in camera (closed) but it's your constitutional right to see justice done. Personally every School kid should have to go IMHO but that's just me.

evo2000 wrote: »

im just wondering because someone i know has been recently been up in court and the book of evidence has been produced for a serious enough offense,

I was just wondering did book of evidence equate to high chance of guilt

My thinking was they wouldnt go to court if they didnt think they couldnt win?

Would that be even close to accurate or is it just a common process and no real indication of guilt?

The person is innocent until proven guilty and the justice system would rather see 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted. If there is no evidence then the DPP might not think it's worth it - I'm open to correction on that I've very little to back up that statement - but then if there's very little evidence does that not indicate a lack of guilt? (I know, I know! )

Hard as it is - don't read to much into someone being in court.

evo2000

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Some cases (mainly sexual) are hear in camera (closed) but it's your constitutional right to see justice done. Personally every School kid should have to go IMHO but that's just me.



The person is innocent until proven guilty and the justice system would rather see 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted. If there is no evidence then the DPP might not think it's worth it - I'm open to correction on that I've very little to back up that statement - but then if there's very little evidence does that not indicate a lack of guilt? (I know, I know! )

Hard as it is - don't read to much into someone being in court.

But assuming there is the book of evidence does that mean a good chance the person is caught for something (not in an offical sense of course innocent till proven guilty) but in your own opinion?

I think if theres a book of evidence its a sort of theres no smoke without fire type situation!

I could of course be 100% wrong

MarkAnthony

A bit more of the duffers guide (me not you!)

At Circuit level and above (e.g. not District) the Judge is the arbitar of law, the jury of fact.

The prosecution must prove every part of their case to the satisfaction of the Jury. It's so interesting watching a Garda mapper prove where a house is! (:rolleyes:) The accused may remain silent and is under no obligation to prove their innocence.(In some cases it gets a little more complex but we'll skip over that!)

A defense might be simple mitigation, e.g. I did it but this is why. It might be nothing. It might be a technical defense etc.

The Jury will be sent out and called back in if there is a legal issue to discuss - such as admissibility of evidence.

All in all I find it totally fascinating, but then I'm strange.

MarkAnthony

evo2000 wrote: »

But assuming there is the book of evidence does that mean a good chance the person is caught for something (not in an offical sense of course innocent till proven guilty) but in your own opinion?

I think if theres a book of evidence its a sort of theres no smoke without fire type situation!

I could of course be 100% wrong

Well evidence is evidence, doesn't mean guilt. It certainly means the guards thought he was a naughty boy.

johnnyskeleton

evo2000 wrote: »

But assuming there is the book of evidence does that mean a good chance the person is caught for something (not in an offical sense of course innocent till proven guilty) but in your own opinion?

I think if theres a book of evidence its a sort of theres no smoke without fire type situation!

I could of course be 100% wrong

All it means is that there is a credible complaint i.e. it is possible that they commited a criminal offence. Beyond that, the evidence could be clear cut and damning, or it could be based on the statement of a person who is lying.

The DPP considers chances of conviction but approaches from the other end of the line. When a file is sent to the DPP i.e. the Gardai want to prosecute, the DPP (well, one of her staff anyway) looks at it and decides whether there is a credible complaint. If there is not then its over, if there is she will consider whether there are any reasons not to prosecute. These can range from the accused being dead (good reason not to prosecute) to a financial decision that the cost of the prosecution is not justified when there is unlikely to be a conviction. Obviously in the most serious cases such as murder she might still prosecute even if the evidence is weak.

evo2000

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All it means is that there is a credible complaint i.e. it is possible that they commited a criminal offence. Beyond that, the evidence could be clear cut and damning, or it could be based on the statement of a person who is lying.

The DPP considers chances of conviction but approaches from the other end of the line. When a file is sent to the DPP i.e. the Gardai want to prosecute, the DPP (well, one of her staff anyway) looks at it and decides whether there is a credible complaint. If there is not then its over, if there is she will consider whether there are any reasons not to prosecute. These can range from the accused being dead (good reason not to prosecute) to a financial decision that the cost of the prosecution is not justified when there is unlikely to be a conviction. Obviously in the most serious cases such as murder she might still prosecute even if the evidence is weak.

But like surely if it got thru the gardai and the DPP and a book of evidence is produced, it must be a high probability of a guilt/conviction, surely if the case was weak it wouldnt have made it as far with out being stopped somewhere along the line?

Sorry if this comes across as abit dumb and maybe im being abit too simplistic!

MarkAnthony

It a balancing act between the public's want for crime to be prosecuted and the state's desire to maximize resources.

To be guilty of a crime though there are a number of elements to be satisfied. Not least the jury doing something unexpected.

johnnyskeleton

evo2000 wrote: »

But like surely if it got thru the gardai and the DPP and a book of evidence is produced, it must be a high probability of a guilt/conviction, surely if the case was weak it wouldnt have made it as far with out being stopped somewhere along the line?

Thats similar to saying that if a movie is bad surely between producers, agents, the studio etc it would be stopped along the line before being made. Yet still we get Battlefield Earths and endless Twilight movies.

All the Gards are saying is they want to prosecute, all the DPP is saying is it seems good on paper. Neither know what the defence will do, a Judge will rule, a Jury will decide etc.

MarkAnthony

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thats similar to saying that if a movie is bad surely between producers, agents, the studio etc it would be stopped along the line before being made. Yet still we get Battlefield Earths and endless Twilight movies.

All the Gards are saying is they want to prosecute, all the DPP is saying is it seems good on paper. Neither know what the defence will do, a Judge will rule, a Jury will decide etc.

I'd love to see the judicial equivalent of Battlefield:Earth!

Jesus Wept

The DCC won't take the case to court unless they believe they can secure a conviction.

MarkAnthony

Je suis Mario wrote: »

The DCC won't take the case to court unless they believe they can secure a conviction.

That's kinda been dealt with - do you have an opposing view to the ones expressed above?

Peregrinus

evo2000 wrote: »

But like surely if it got thru the gardai and the DPP and a book of evidence is produced, it must be a high probability of a guilt/conviction, surely if the case was weak it wouldnt have made it as far with out being stopped somewhere along the line?

Sorry if this comes across as abit dumb and maybe im being abit too simplistic!

As others have said, the DPP doesn't bring a prosecution unless he expects to win a conviction. So he generally does think, yes, that the defendant is guilty.

But he doesn't have the whole picture. He doesn't know what evidence the defence are going to produce. Therefore, while he may honestly believe that the defendant is guilty, he's not necessarily correct. Hence the need for a judge, or judge-and-jury in serious cases, to look at both sides of the case.

Little CuChulainn

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'd love to see the judicial equivalent of Battlefield:Earth!

I'm sure we've all seen close to it.

testicle

Stage 1 - Jury Selection
Stage 2 - Arraignment - charges read out & plead guilty / not guilty
Stage 3 - Opening statement by prosecution
Stage 4 - Prosecution evidence
Stage 5 - Application for direction by defence
Stage 6 - Defence evidence
Stage 7 - Closing statements, prosecution then defence
Stage 8 - Judges direction to the jury
Stage 9 - Jury considers verdict
Stage 10 - Jury decides verdict
Stage 11 - Sentence hearing

4ensic15

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A bit more of the duffers guide (me not you!)

At Circuit level and above (e.g. not District) the Judge is the arbitar of law, the jury of fact.

The prosecution must prove every part of their case to the satisfaction of the Jury. It's so interesting watching a Garda mapper prove where a house is! (:rolleyes:) The accused may remain silent and is under no obligation to prove their innocence.(In some cases it gets a little more complex but we'll skip over that!)

A defense might be simple mitigation, e.g. I did it but this is why. It might be nothing. It might be a technical defense etc.

The Jury will be sent out and called back in if there is a legal issue to discuss - such as admissibility of evidence.

All in all I find it totally fascinating, but then I'm strange.

There is no jury involved in a mitigation plea. mitigation only goes to the severity of sentence which is a function for the judge alone.

4ensic15

evo2000 wrote: »

But like surely if it got thru the gardai and the DPP and a book of evidence is produced, it must be a high probability of a guilt/conviction, surely if the case was weak it wouldnt have made it as far with out being stopped somewhere along the line?

Sorry if this comes across as abit dumb and maybe im being abit too simplistic!

In many cases the investigator forms a belief that a person committed the crime. This may be just a hunch and they view all of the evidence through that belief. A file may go to the DPP where the guards are convinced so and so is guilty but when the DPP look at it they can see numerous weaknesses in the case. Ian Bailey and the Kerry babies case are examples.

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is no jury involved in a mitigation plea. mitigation only goes to the severity of sentence which is a function for the judge alone.

Indeed my stream of consciousness doesn't always make for clear reading. Thanks for the clarification.

joe_six_cans

evo2000 wrote: »

How does a court case work? and do the gardai only take it to court when they have a high chance of conviction?

a close relative of mine was once summonsed to court , her crime , she owns a farm , she asked a local contractor to trim the hedges along her land , he by mistake trimmed the hedges of her neighbour too

her neighbour went to the guards and accused her of deliberately damaging his trees

the same guy was well connected with high up members of AGS and had a grudge against the womans son who he was really out to get , he dropped the charges a week before her court appearance was due as there was no chance of a seventy year old widow getting convicted for something like that

its not always a case of whether a conviction is likely OP

joe_six_cans

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It a balancing act between the public's want for crime to be prosecuted and the state's desire to maximize resources.

To be guilty of a crime though there are a number of elements to be satisfied. Not least the jury doing something unexpected.

jurys are not used at district court , the OP has not said which court the case is likely to be heard

MarkAnthony

joe_six_cans wrote: »

jurys are not used at district court , the OP has not said which court the case is likely to be heard

No he didn't, but he seemed to indicate it wasn't minor; worth noting, though, OP.

evo2000

MarkAnthony wrote: »

No he didn't, but he seemed to indicate it wasn't minor; worth noting, though, OP.

Oh yeah its fairly serious

johnnyskeleton

joe_six_cans wrote: »

jurys are not used at district court , the OP has not said which court the case is likely to be heard

To be fair he did refer to a book of evidence, hence the discussion moved to indictable crime.

...And Justice

The Guards don't necessarily have to have a high level of evidence to try and convict someone, I accompanied a relative that was summons to the CCJ for dangerous driving and causing a serious accident. Luckily my relative had the facts data and engineers reports that proved otherwise, the other party was at fault.

The prosecuting Guard was presented this information outside the court before going in, but wanted to press ahead anyway, which when you looked at it didn't make any sense. The Guard went on the stand and was destroyed by the defense barrister, and the case was dismissed.

Little CuChulainn

...And Justice wrote: »

The Guards don't necessarily have to have a high level of evidence to try and convict someone, I accompanied a relative that was summons to the CCJ for dangerous driving and causing a serious accident. Luckily my relative had the facts data and engineers reports that proved otherwise, the other party was at fault.

The prosecuting Guard was presented this information outside the court before going in, but wanted to press ahead anyway, which when you looked at it didn't make any sense. The Guard went on the stand and was destroyed by the defense barrister, and the case was dismissed.

Garda didn't have a choice. Not allowed withdraw a charge for dangerous driving.

...And Justice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Garda didn't have a choice. Not allowed withdraw a charge for dangerous driving.

He was asked to revoke the summons, when he went in to the court but didn't want to.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

4ensic15

...And Justice wrote: »

He was asked to revoke the summons, when he went in to the court but didn't want to.

It wouldn't have been his decision at that stage. The Superintendent would have
ordered that the case go ahead.

...And Justice

4ensic15 wrote: »

It wouldn't have been his decision at that stage. The Superintendent would have
ordered that the case go ahead.

It was section 53, the most serious, but he wanted to go ahead, and was made a fool of, in front of at least 20 guardai at the back if the court, how does this stuff happen? When the evidence is clear cut?