Evidence required by a complainant to show that an offense occurred

CIARAN_BOYLE

When making a complaint to An Garda Siochanna what level of evidence does a complainant need to show that an offense occurred.

I am asking this due to a specific incident where I was told by a member of AGS that I didn't have any evidence that an offense occurred so they would not be doing an investigation based on my complaint but I would appreciate a theoretical discussion based within the forum rules rather than any legal advice.

hullaballoo

Oral testimony to say the offence occurred is all that's needed in theory but corroboration is almost always required to secure a conviction.

What's more interesting to me is whether a member of AGS has discretion to refuse to investigate a complaint?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Well this particular member of AGS must have felt that he had. That said its an interesting line of discussion and anyone seeking to weigh in on this matter is more than welcome.


Is there a legal basis for de minimis non curat lex and how would this weigh in against say for example a car hitting a pedestrian but the pedestrian not suffering injuries beyond some heavy scuff marks on a suit and being in shape to walk to a Garda station.

hullaballoo

I remembered that there was a thread before dealing with Garda discretion that might shed some light on the question: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=101069853

I don't think de minimis is applicable as hitting a pedestrian is hardly trifling by any measure, notwithstanding that the pedestrian is not ostensibly injured.

CIARAN_BOYLE

hullaballoo wrote: »

I remembered that there was a thread before dealing with Garda discretion that might shed some light on the question: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=101069853

I don't think de minimis is applicable as hitting a pedestrian is hardly trifling by any measure, notwithstanding that the pedestrian is not ostensibly injured.

The OP in the linked thread mentions that a policeman will be obliged to act on receipt of a credible report of a felony. One could argue that the credibility of a report would be damaged by a lack of injuries when one would expect injuries.

hullaballoo

But there is evidence in the way of "heavy scuff marks?"

Also, the word "felony" isn't helpful as we no longer have felonies here - they were abolished in 1997 iirc. We now don't really have any meaningful distinction for categories of offences and it's therefore difficult to tell to what offences the above obligation to act will apply.

CIARAN_BOYLE

hullaballoo wrote: »

But there is evidence in the way of "heavy scuff marks?"

Also, the word "felony" isn't helpful as we no longer have felonies here - they were abolished in 1997 iirc. We now don't really have any meaningful distinction for categories of offences and it's therefore difficult to tell to what offences the above obligation to act will apply.

True that said a scuff a mark can occur in a fair number of different ways. Just because a suit is scuffed doesn't mean the wearer was hit by a car.

I'm kind of playing devils advocate here.

Little CuChulainn

Perhaps it's simply more a case of having nothing to investigate. If there's no witnesses, no cctv in the area, no injury and a no registration number then there is really no investigation to do. It's more a matter of recording the incident.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Perhaps it's simply more a case of having nothing to investigate. If there's no witnesses, no cctv in the area, no injury and a no registration number then there is really no investigation to do. It's more a matter of recording the incident.

Would it be the responsibility of the complainant or of the member of AGS to investigate whether there was CCTV. The alleged incident occurred in a built up urban area (next to a Garda station and the complainant walked (in less than a minute) to the Garda station to make the complaint.

Should the Garda not be the one to investigate whether there is cctv or should the complainant go around nearby shops asking for any external cctv and go to AGS. Surely this would put too much investigative burden on the complainant. Surely this burden should lie on AGS.

An investigative process should occur cctv should be sought and viewed and if there is no evidence a determination should be made in that regard. Instead a complainant showed up in the station, made a report and was informed that there was no evidence and no investigation would occur.

Little CuChulainn

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Would it be the responsibility of the complainant or of the member of AGS to investigate whether there was CCTV. The alleged incident occurred in a built up urban area (next to a Garda station and the complainant walked (in less than a minute) to the Garda station to make the complaint.

Should the Garda not be the one to investigate whether there is cctv or should the complainant go around nearby shops asking for any external cctv and go to AGS. Surely this would put too much investigative burden on the complainant. Surely this burden should lie on AGS.

An investigative process should occur cctv should be sought and viewed and if there is no evidence a determination should be made in that regard. Instead a complainant showed up in the station, made a report and was informed that there was no evidence and no investigation should occur.

Most Gardaí know the cctv coverage of an area, especially close to the station. In reality, unless there is council or Garda cctv in an area there won't be any. CCTV in businesses rarely covers the road and when it does it's not much use.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Most Gardaí know the cctv coverage of an area,

Very fair point, I would have assumed that determining whether there was suitable cctv would form part of the investigation process. If instead its considered 'assumed knowledge' it would indeed be a suitable reason for no investigation to occur.

lifeandtimes

I would be under the impression that unless AGS knew there was cctv coverage of the area they wouldn't have to investigate as ultimately it's the complainants words against nothing else,without witnesses or license plate number the guard has absolutely nothing to go on other than the word, to do so would be a waste of Garda time and resources which it is what it would come down too.

Will a guard go out of their way to investigate something without anything to go on with the chance their superior gives them a bollocking when they come up empty handed,probably not

Carawaystick

lifeandtimes wrote: »

I would be under the impression that unless AGS knew there was cctv coverage of the area they wouldn't have to investigate as

Surely the cops would have to investigate unless they knew there *wasn't* cctv coverage, and even then they'd have to try get witnesses etc?

Peregrinus

Obviously the police have to make decisions about how they allocate their resources. This means screening reports/complaints and deciding what action to take on each one and how far to follow it up. A number of factors would feed into this, but a big consideration would be an assessment of (a) how likely it was that an alleged offender could be identified, and (b) how likely it was that evidence could be assembled sufficient to secure a conviction of that offender. ("How serious is the alleged offence?" would obviously be another consideration.)

Del2005

Could always just have been a bad Garda rather than a Garda policy. Years ago I needed to get a form witnessed and dropped into a Garda station, the Garda on the front desk wouldn't witness it and gave me a load of BS why not. Stopped into another station and was witnessed straight away.

lifeandtimes

Carawaystick wrote: »

Surely the cops would have to investigate unless they knew there *wasn't* cctv coverage, and even then they'd have to try get witnesses etc?

Unfortunately witness statements are pretty much unreliable,so many studies done about this,people's memory is a fickle thing and in cases can be sure they saw a red car when the complainants saying it was green,the guards gather them as a back up but hardly every rely on them significantly and in the op situation there were no witnesses and even if there was other than making an tv appeal they'll never get in touch with them

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm open to correction here, but I doubt if the guards on the front desk can refuse to record a complaint. They can, perhaps, discourage you from making one, if they think it would be pointless. Once a complaint is made someone, at some point, is going to have to make and record a decision about action (or inaction) and, again, I doubt if that is the guard who happens to be on the front desk when you happen to come in to make the complaint.