alibi warning?

Donutz

Could somebody explain to me what an alibi warning is?

Grolschevik

Would you not even google it?

Donutz

Grolschevik wrote:

Would you not even google it?

I did but couldn't make sense of it.

4ensic15

A person is only allowed to lead an alibi defence if they give the prosecution advance notice of the details. A person cannot say , at trial, in response to an allegation that they committed a crime in Dublin that they were in Cork during the period in question and the Bishop of Cork is in court to say that he was sitting in the front row at mass when this crime was committed unless they have told this to the prosecution within 2 weeks of being sent forward for trial to a court higher than the District Court .
A person is told this in the District Court when being sent forward and this advice is called an alibi warning.

Little CuChulainn

You have to give the prosecution advanced notice if you are to rely on an alibi so they can investigate it before trial.

NUTLEY BOY

Side bar question for clarity.

Generally,the prosecution carries the burden of proof to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and the accused does not have to prove his innocence.

If the accused is offering alibi evidence I take it that he must actually prove it as distinct from simply offering it to the prosecution for investigation.

Which standard of proof applies to an accused in this situation i.e. beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities ?

Donutz

Thanks for the replies.

Looks like a person I know wanted me to provide an alabi and was asking me to do it in a round about way.

Needless to say, I am not prepared to commit perjury for anybody.

4ensic15

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Side bar question for clarity.

Generally,the prosecution carries the burden of proof to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and the accused does not have to prove his innocence.

If the accused is offering alibi evidence I take it that he must actually prove it as distinct from simply offering it to the prosecution for investigation.

Which standard of proof applies to an accused in this situation i.e. beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities ?

The accused only has to raise a reasonable doubt. He has to lead some evidence from which it could be concluded that it might be true that he was in wherever he says. He does not have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt or even on the balance of probabilities. The prosecution then has to rebut it. The prosecution have to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the alibi is not true.
The reason for the warning is to allow the prosecution investigate the alleged alibi.
Far too many cases would collapse if a defendant could produce a witness at the end of the prosecution case to say he was 100 miles away at the time the crime was committed if this was the first the prosecution knew of it.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

The accused only has to raise a reasonable doubt. He has to lead some evidence from which it could be concluded that it might be true that he was in wherever he says. He does not have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt or even on the balance of probabilities. The prosecution then has to rebut it. The prosecution have to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the alibi is not true.
The reason for the warning is to allow the prosecution investigate the alleged alibi.
Far too many cases would collapse if a defendant could produce a witness at the end of the prosecution case to say he was 100 miles away at the time the crime was committed if this was the first the prosecution knew of it.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but there are some instances the accused does need to prove a defence on the balance of probabilities under common law or a statutory defence. Obviously not specifically in relation to an alibi - I'm not sure if you're saying the prosecution must disprove the defence generally or specifically in the case of an alibi.

Under common law if the accused argues that they are unfit to plead then they must prove that unfitness on the balance of probabilities. If an accused raises the defence of insanity or diminished responsibility they must prove, on the balance of probabilities that they were insane at the time of committing the offence.

Or where the accused raises a statutory defence and the statute provides for the accused to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities, Section 29 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 for example.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1977/act/12/section/29/enacted/en/html#sec29

As per D.P.P vs Byrne, Healy and Kelleher [1998] 2 I.R. 417, the accused were arrested in possession of packets containing drugs but claimed not be aware of their contents. It was held, however that once possession of the packages was proved by the prosecution that the onus shifted to the accused to prove lack of knowledge of the contents of the packages. The prosecution was obliged to prove that the accused had, and knew they had a package in their control and that package contained something. The prosecution must also prove that the package contained the controlled substance alleged. However the burden of proof then rested with the accused to bring themselves within the defence in s.29(2).


EDIT: Sorry 4ensic, scrap that - having re-read your post i think your specifically speaking in relation to an alibi and not generally in relation to a defence.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

But correct me if I'm wrong, but there are some instances the accused does need to prove a defence on the balance of probabilities under common law or a statutory defence. Obviously not specifically in relation to an alibi - I'm not sure if you're saying the prosecution must disprove the defence generally or specifically in the case of an alibi.

Under common law if the accused argues that they are unfit to plead then they must prove that unfitness on the balance of probabilities. If an accused raises the defence of insanity or diminished responsibility they must prove, on the balance of probabilities that they were insane at the time of committing the offence.

Or where the accused raises a statutory defence and the statute provides for the accused to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities, Section 29 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 for example.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1977/act/12/section/29/enacted/en/html#sec29

As per D.P.P vs Byrne, Healy and Kelleher [1998] 2 I.R. 417, the accused were arrested in possession of packets containing drugs but claimed not be aware of their contents. It was held, however that once possession of the packages was proved by the prosecution that the onus shifted to the accused to prove lack of knowledge of the contents of the packages. The prosecution was obliged to prove that the accused had, and knew they had a package in their control and that package contained something. The prosecution must also prove that the package contained the controlled substance alleged. However the burden of proof then rested with the accused to bring themselves within the defence in s.29(2).


EDIT: Sorry 4ensic, scrap that - having re-read your post i think your specifically speaking in relation to an alibi and not generally in relation to a defence.

This is a thread about alibi warnings. It is also relevant that an alibi is, in a lot of cases, a perfect defence. A person simply cannot have committed most crimes if they were not at the place where the crime was committed, at the time it was committed. If a person has a genuine alibi the sooner the prosecution find out and cancel the trial, the better.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

This is a thread about alibi warnings. It is also relevant that an alibi is, in a lot of cases, a perfect defence. A person simply cannot have committed most crimes if they were not at the place where the crime was committed, at the time it was committed. If a person has a genuine alibi the sooner the prosecution find out and cancel the trial, the better.

Yes of course, apologies 4ensic, I know the thread is about an alibi warning but I was simply initially taking your post up wrong in relation to a defence in general - one of the dangers of reading and posting with a sleepy head :-) hence why I said to disregard it when I re-read again and realised I was wrong.

NUTLEY BOY

A further question if I may please.

Are there any circumstances in a criminal trial where the accused bears a burden of proof (as distinct from raising reasonable doubt) in relation to evidence being offered by the defence ?

Little CuChulainn

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A further question if I may please.

Are there any circumstances in a criminal trial where the accused bears a burden of proof (as distinct from raising reasonable doubt) in relation to evidence being offered by the defence ?

Drink driving. If the accused claims they drank alcohol between the time of driving and time of arrest, they must prove that the alcohol they consumed in that time put them over the limit. An almost impossible task.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A further question if I may please.

Are there any circumstances in a criminal trial where the accused bears a burden of proof (as distinct from raising reasonable doubt) in relation to evidence being offered by the defence ?

See my original striked through message.

Under common law if the accused argues that they are unfit to plead then they must prove that unfitness on the balance of probabilities. If an accused raises the defence of insanity or diminished responsibility they must prove, on the balance of probabilities that they were insane at the time of committing the offence.

Or where the accused raises a statutory defence and the statute provides for the accused to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities, Section 29 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 for example.

http://www.irishstatut...nacted/en/html#sec29

As per D.P.P vs Byrne, Healy and Kelleher [1998] 2 I.R. 417, the accused were arrested in possession of packets containing drugs but claimed not be aware of their contents. It was held, however that once possession of the packages was proved by the prosecution that the onus shifted to the accused to prove lack of knowledge of the contents of the packages. The prosecution was obliged to prove that the accused had, and knew they had a package in their control and that package contained something. The prosecution must also prove that the package contained the controlled substance alleged. However the burden of proof then rested with the accused to bring themselves within the defence in s.29(2).

GM228

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Drink driving. If the accused claims they drank alcohol between the time of driving and time of arrest, they must prove that the alcohol they consumed in that time put them over the limit. An almost impossible task.

The so called "hip flask defence", open to correction but isn't it up to the prosecution to rebut the defence rather than the defendant prove the defence?

Didn't the 2012 District Court case in Limerick see the accused get off simply because it created a reasonable doubt on the prosecution as they couldn't rebut rather than the accused actually proving it or not

EDIT: I suppose S5 (8) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 could make it a statutory defence.