What does 'pressing charges' mean?

Pickpocket

Hi.

My brother-in-law was assaulted over Xmas. A random knockout punch that left him in hospital. The perpetrator has since rang and apologised. My brother-in-law was asked by the Gardai if he wants to press charges. He said he didn't want to. Apparently they have a lot of mutual friends and he has it on good authority that this guy is a decent bloke but some personal difficulties during the year resulted in a once-off moment of madness. I respect my brother-in-law's decison. He just wants to put it behind him. He's a quite man and giving evidence in Court would torment him more than the actual assault.

Anyway, the guy in question was arrested on the night. There was also a good few witnesses. We live in a small town so the Gardai would know at least some of the witnesses. I'm just wondering why they need the victim to press charges? Is that one of the defining aspects of an assault case? I would have thought that the Gardai can seek to prosecute an assault if they wanted to.

This particular case is done and dusted but I'd appreciate some info all the same.

StudentDad

Technically they could build a case, get witness statements etc and forward the file to the dpp without the consent of the victim. It'd be up to the dpp to bring a case etc. That said ....

SD

judeboy101

Pickpocket wrote: »

Hi.

My brother-in-law was assaulted over Xmas. A random knockout punch that left him in hospital. The perpetrator has since rang and apologised. My brother-in-law was asked by the Gardai if he wants to press charges. He said he didn't want to. Apparently they have a lot of mutual friends and he has it on good authority that this guy is a decent bloke but some personal difficulties during the year resulted in a once-off moment of madness. I respect my brother-in-law's decison. He just wants to put it behind him. He's a quite man and giving evidence in Court would torment him more than the actual assault.

Anyway, the guy in question was arrested on the night. There was also a good few witnesses. We live in a small town so the Gardai would know at least some of the witnesses. I'm just wondering why they need the victim to press charges? Is that one of the defining aspects of an assault case? I would have thought that the Gardai can seek to prosecute an assault if they wanted to.

This particular case is done and dusted but I'd appreciate some info all the same.

Mod : Smart alec remark. Pls keep it civil here.>>

Kepler 186f

Firstly, "pressing charges" is not usually how it's defined here, I'm aware you said that's how it was put to your bro in law. It is up to the victim to make a a formal written complaint, without making a complaint it is unlikely to proceed any further. In rare cases if the Gardai see a fight occurring and the victim chooses not to make a complaint, the offender can be prosecuted ..

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

cnoc

OP - will /did the perpetrator pay your B-i-L hospital bill plus any other costs?

mynamejeff

ya yer man can be done for it but really why ?

he is likely facing public order charges if he spent the night in the cells.

if the gardai charged him for assault its possible that your bil could arrive up to court to say nothing happened

Little CuChulainn

The definition of assault requires that the act be committed without consent. It's hard to prove their was no consent without the victim saying it. Similarly for theft, you need to prove that property was taken from it's rightful owner. if the owner won't give evidence to that effect it's pretty hard to meet the requirement.

Thoie

What about a situation where the assaulted person was unconcious (say, in a coma), and can't make a formal complaint. Do they ask his next of kin to do it, or would they just go ahead and build the case in that scenario?

Peregrinus

It's difficult or impossible to prosecute an assault case without the co-operation of the victim, whose evidence is almost certainly going to be needed to build the case against the defendant. In theory the DPP can subpoena the victim and compel him to testify even if he doesn't want to, but in practice you can't be sure what evidence the victim will give in such a case, and it makes for uncertainty as to whether a conviction will be secured, and the DPP generally doesn't prosecute unless he expects a conviction.

Thus, if the victim doesn't want the alleged offender prosecuted, in most cases he won't be.

Thoie - if the victim is unconscious they'll wait for him to wake up. If he's not going to wake up, then they review what kind of a case they can make without his evidence, and decide on that basis whether or not to prosecute. The views and wishes of the victim's next-of-kin would carry a bit less weight in this cirumstance, although they might still be important if the next-of-kin were also witnesses to the assault whose evidence was going to be relevant. But with a vary serious assault leading to permanent disablity like this, the DPP would be keen to prosecute, and would encourage the victim's family to co-operate in giving any required evidence.

Little CuChulainn

Thoie wrote: »

What about a situation where the assaulted person was unconcious (say, in a coma), and can't make a formal complaint. Do they ask his next of kin to do it, or would they just go ahead and build the case in that scenario?

There are three different charges depending on how serious the injury is.

Section 2 Assault is the basic one and covers the definition of assault.

Section 3 Assault causing harm is for cases were injury has been suffered as a result of an assault.

Section 4 Causing serious harm would be for cases were a person suffers "injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substantial loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organ"

Section 4 would likely be the charge in a case such as the girl in Maynooth. The important thing about section 4 to note is the absence of the word assault. The absence of this word means it does not require the same ingredients as the other two, the main ingredient being the absence of consent.

schemingbohemia

mynamejeff wrote: »

ya yer man can be done for it but really why ?

he is likely facing public order charges if he spent the night in the cells.

if the gardai charged him for assault its possible that your bil could arrive up to court to say nothing happened

You mean perjure himself?

NUTLEY BOY

OP, I hope that your brother in law has lodged a claim with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. There is a 3 months time limit within which to lodge a claim. Time runs from the date of the incident.

Link http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/WP15000110

Victor

Legal advice could be sought. What if the victim has medical problems down the line?

It might be best to agree to put something in writing with the Garda, even if it doesn't go anywhere.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The definition of assault requires that the act be committed without consent. It's hard to prove their was no consent without the victim saying it. Similarly for theft, you need to prove that property was taken from it's rightful owner. if the owner won't give evidence to that effect it's pretty hard to meet the requirement.

R v Brown. It would be difficult to accept knocking someone unconscious was just a bit of fun.

Little CuChulainn

Victor wrote: »

Legal advice could be sought. What if the victim has medical problems down the line?

It might be best to agree to put something in writing with the Garda, even if it doesn't go anywhere.



R v Brown. It would be difficult to accept knocking someone unconscious was just a bit of fun.

That was before 50 Shades of Grey.

Samuel T. Cogley

Notwithstanding Denham J's (as she was then I believe) foray into making all forms of assault illegal no mater if consent was given or not, I don't believe that one can consent to a section 3 assault either. I welcome correction (perhaps not quite in the same vein as R v Brown though).

Assault.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

***

Assault causing harm.

3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

Section 1 on interpretation:

“harm” means harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness;

Therefore consent can't be given to being knocked unconscious by virtue of the act.

Little CuChulainn

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Notwithstanding Denham J's (as she was then I believe) foray into making all forms of assault illegal no mater if consent was given or not, I don't believe that one can consent to a section 3 assault either. I welcome correction (perhaps not quite in the same vein as R v Brown though).

Assault.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

***

Assault causing harm.

3.—(1) A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

Section 1 on interpretation:

“harm” means harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness;

Therefore consent can't be given to being knocked unconscious by virtue of the act.

Would a tattoo or piercing not technically fall under a section 3 assault if consent was not allowed?

Samuel T. Cogley

Sorry I couldn't remember the case last night and should not have just made a cryptic reference to it. I believe your point is dealt with in some detail in Dolny 2008 IEHC 326 as per Peart J clarifying the legislation. While the Supreme Court appeal would have to be largely ignored due at a misapplication of the law, if one takes that judgement as the correct statement of the law it does indeed render tattoos an assault.

The central issue is that a tattoo artist lacks the mens reas. Arguably a boxer in a boxing match does not, however.

I wrote this post and had to start again so any corrections as to the current position, gratefully taken!

Victor

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Would a tattoo or piercing not technically fall under a section 3 assault if consent was not allowed?

Adding a tattoo to someone without consent is hardly like accidentally bumping into someone on a busy street.

In normal tattooing circumstances, there is lawful excuse and consent.

Little CuChulainn

Victor wrote: »

Adding a tattoo to someone without consent is hardly like accidentally bumping into someone on a busy street.

In normal tattooing circumstances, there is lawful excuse and consent.

I was responding to a poster who said that it may not matter if consent is given to an act that would otherwise come under Section 3.

GritBiscuit

Regulated contact sports, dangerous stunts/exhibitions, surgical procedures/medical treatments, getting tattoos/piercings and even rough and undisciplined horseplay (see R V Aitkins or R V Jones) are viewed as lawful activities which do not offend public policy and thus consent is a defence, should a defence be required.

Consent is not a defence for unlawful activities or those that offend public policy - such as held in R V Brown and Ors [1994] re S&M or R V Emmett [1999] re sexual suffocation and burning. The branding in R v Wilson [1996] being the outlier as the courts were unwilling to interfere with marital privacy.

mynamejeff

i have heard of a case where some one had his ponytail cut by some one who was making a very bad joke , complaint of assault was made and while it did not get to court compensation was paid

i suspose assault would have been the charge , section 2 ? or 3 i guess