Appearing in court unnecessarily?

bagels

I'm not looking for legal advice.
I was summoned to appear in the district court to face two charges, careless driving and public order act. Being innocent I was confident of winning. The garda and the three prosecution witnesses didn't show up. I respectfully asked the judge to dismiss the charges as the prosecution failed to produce their witnesses. He refused.
I then realised that the prosecution wasn't ready to proceed on one of the charges due to waiting on the outcome of a matter (unrelated to me) before the supreme court, hence the absence of the garda and the other three witnesses who'd obviously been notified in advance not to attend.
Was there an onus on somebody to notify me that the case wouldn't be proceeding on the date for which I'd been summoned and, if so, who's responsibility was it to notify me?

Peregrinus

Can you tell us a bit more about what went on on the day? Was your case listed? Was it called? Did anyone at all appear on behalf of the state to seek an adjournment? Or to seek anything? Or were you the only person who had anything at all to say when the case was called? If the judge didn't dismiss your case, what did he do? Who, do you know, asked him to do that?

Sleeper12

My nephew was arrested as a water meter protester. He gets bad panic attacks so I brought him to court each time. 8 court aperrances in total. The dpp weren't ready for the first 5 times so it kept getting put back. A shocking waste of time and money

hungry hypno toad

Sleeper12 wrote: »

My nephew was arrested as a water meter protester. He gets bad panic attacks so I brought him to court each time. 8 court aperrances in total. The dpp weren't ready for the first 5 times so it kept getting put back. A shocking waste of time and money

Peaceful protest?

Peregrinus

Your nephew might benefit from professional representation. It sounds like your nephew is being given the run-around, and he's in a good position to press to have the matter peremptorily fixed (meaning, a stop to the endless cycle of adjournments). But a bit of tactical experience and judgment will be useful in deciding how to press for this effectively at the next hearing.

Sleeper12

hungry hypno toad wrote: »

Peaceful protest?

I feel I have to make it clear I was just supporting him. He has autism, epilepsy & has shocking anxiety. Couldn't get him out of the court toilets the first day. He was vomiting with nerves. I'm happy to pay for metered water

hungry hypno toad

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I feel I have to make it clear I was just supporting him. He has autism, epilepsy & has shocking anxiety. Couldn't get him out of the court toilets the first day. He was vomiting with nerves. I'm happy to pay for metered water

Sad that his parents and the organisers allowed such a vulnerable youth to become involved in the protest. Good luck.

Sleeper12

Peregrinus wrote:

Your nephew might benefit from professional representation. It sounds like your nephew is being given the run-around, and he's in a good position to press to have the matter peremptorily fixed (meaning, a stop to the endless cycle of adjournments). But a bit of tactical experience and judgment will be useful in deciding how to press for this effectively at the next hearing.

Thanks for the advice. His case is over with. Sorry I seem to be distracting from the original topic.

bagels

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can you tell us a bit more about what went on on the day? Was your case listed? Was it called? Did anyone at all appear on behalf of the state to seek an adjournment? Or to seek anything? Or were you the only person who had anything at all to say when the case was called? If the judge didn't dismiss your case, what did he do? Who, do you know, asked him to do that?

The case was listed.
When it was called i walked up and stood beside the prosecutor, a garda inspector.
The judge asked me who i was.
He then asked if i had legal representation.
I replied 'not at this time" and I then asked for a dismissal on the grounds that the garda and his three witnesses weren't present in court.
The judge refused my request for dismissal, stating that a dismissal couldn't be granted on the first occasion the case comes before court. He followed that up by stating "not in my court". He then said that if it was me who failed to appear instead of the prosecution witnesses he wouldn't hear the case in my absence. I got the impression he was trying to justify his decision not to dismiss.
The judge said that 'careless driving' was before the supreme court and that it could be a very long time before my case could go ahead.
The inspector didn't speak until prompted by the judge and that was to confirm that 'careless driving' was being reviewed by the supreme court. otherwise he remained silent.
Nobody else spoke.
The judge then asked the inspector for a suitable date to defer the case too and they settled on April 'for mention only'.
Then the judge asked me if i intended being represented and i told him i couldn't afford to engage a solicitor. He offered to appoint a free legal aid solicitor there and then and i accepted his offer.
The solicitor led me outside, took my contact details and told me he'd obtain copies of the witness statements.
The solicitor told me i was free to leave and he returned to the courtroom.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

nuac

Mod
Thread re-opened following discussion with poster
NB Forum rule against seeking or giving legal advice still applies

bagels

Thank you nuac for re-opening the thread.

Once again I ask you all:
Was there an onus on somebody to notify me that the case wouldn't be proceeding on the date for which I'd been summoned and, if so, who's responsibility was it to notify me?

Any knowledgeable answers to the above would be greatly appreciated.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

bagels wrote: »

Thank you nuac for re-opening the thread.

Once again I ask you all:
Was there an onus on somebody to notify me that the case wouldn't be proceeding on the date for which I'd been summoned and, if so, who's responsibility was it to notify me?

Any knowledgeable answers to the above would be greatly appreciated.

No, there was no onus on anyone to inform you.

Even if the case is not going ahead you have a right to be present, and indeed an interest in being present since you might want to object to an adjournment and seek a strike-out instead (which in fact is what you did). Plus, in a criminal matter the court would always like the defendant to be present or to be represented whenever the case is up for mention, so there can be no question of steps being taken without the defendant's knowledge. The expectation is that you'll want to be there in any circumstances, and they would encourage that, so the procedures aren't really set up to facilitate you not being there.

bagels

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, there was no onus on anyone to inform you.

Even if the case is not going ahead you have a right to be present, and indeed an interest in being present since you might want to object to an adjournment and seek a strike-out instead (which in fact is what you did). Plus, in a criminal matter the court would always like the defendant to be present or to be represented whenever the case is up for mention, so there can be no question of steps being taken without the defendant's knowledge. The expectation is that you'll want to be there in any circumstances, and they would encourage that, so the procedures aren't really set up to facilitate you not being there.

Thank you for your informative reply Peregrinus, I appreciate it.

lifeandtimes

If op has to take time of work each time at his own expense can he request for costs to be awarded to him for the dates the hearing didn't go ahead during the actual hearing?

Peregrinus

lifeandtimes wrote: »

If op has to take time of work each time at his own expense can he request for costs to be awarded to him for the dates the hearing didn't go ahead during the actual hearing?

No. You don't get awards of costs in criminal matters. Even in civil matters, where you do get an award of costs if you're successful, the costs you can recover are strictly limited, and don't include your own time, or loss of wages for the time you were dealing with the proceedings.

lifeandtimes

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. You don't get awards of costs in criminal matters. Even in civil matters, where you do get an award of costs if you're successful, the costs you can recover are strictly limited, and don't include your own time, or loss of wages for the time you were dealing with the proceedings.

Even if op is found to be innocent?

Seems unfair to be in and out so many times,at your own expense only to be found innocent

Peregrinus

So it goes.

mynamejeff

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Even if op is found to be innocent?

Seems unfair to be in and out so many times,at your own expense only to be found innocent

not guilty is not the same thing as innocent however

thats the justice system ,

peoples time wasted , guilty people going free on technicality, open to manipulation politically and by dishonest parties.

2012paddy2012

If the prosecution were looking for an adjournment for some reason then they . Gaurds ..Should notify you of this. Whether there is a legal obligation I don't know it may be a courtesy thing .. bottom line if your summoned you are obliged to attend untill the matter is finally disposed of. Of course now the taxpayer is covering your legal costs as presumably you can't afford it ( were you asked for a statement of means you should have) why don't you ask yr solicitor ( you may now find there are a few more adjournments 😵)..I think he will say there is no obligation on the state to notify you

hullaballoo

mynamejeff wrote: »

not guilty is not the same thing as innocent however

thats the justice system ,

peoples time wasted , guilty people going free on technicality, open to manipulation politically and by dishonest parties.

Sorry, what? Not guilty = innocent. If you are found to be not guilty, then you aren't guilty of the alleged offence. It isn't a particularly controversial concept.

In other jurisdictions, such as Scotland, where there is a third verdict available in "not proven" which would allow you to say a failure by the prosecution to obtain a conviction does not fully absolve the accused. In Ireland, not guilty is absolution by way of a legal finding of innocence.

ETA: you may be referring to a situation where a trial collapses as a result of some wrongdoing by the prosecution, or more usually, the media in or around the reporting of the trial. That's wholly different and does not usually give rise to an acquittal. However, in many cases, the prosecution fail to establish the commission of the offence by the accused which can result in a direction from the trial judge to acquit, which is a finding of innocence but is not "walking free on a technicality."

Sleeper12

hullaballoo wrote:

Sorry, what? Not guilty = innocent. If you are found to be not guilty, then you aren't guilty of the alleged offence. It isn't a particularly controversial concept.

I can't say what the legality of guilty /innocent are but you would assume that someone found not guilty of a crime would be considered at least on equal footing as someone else who wasn't even tried for the crime.

Really Interested

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. You don't get awards of costs in criminal matters. Even in civil matters, where you do get an award of costs if you're successful, the costs you can recover are strictly limited, and don't include your own time, or loss of wages for the time you were dealing with the proceedings.

cost in criminal cases can be given in the Circuit Court to a person acquited The bar on costs in criminal matters only applies because of the district court rules and then only as set out in that rule.

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/7cee11e8193a33da80256d2b0046a078?OpenDocument

Peregrinus

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I can't say what the legality of guilty /innocent are but you would assume that someone found not guilty of a crime would be considered at least on equal footing as someone else who wasn't even tried for the crime.

The question is a criminal trial is not "did he do it?". It's "has the state proven, beyound reasonable doubt, that he did it?". If the answer to that question is "no", then you'll be found not guilty.

Legally, this means that you'll be treated for all purposes as if you didn't do it. Plus, you can't be tried again for the same offence.

But, objectively, there has been no finding that you didn't do it. And, socially, depending on the circumstances and the evidence presented, you may suffer considerable odium, plus a widespread suspicion or even conviction that you did do it.

The evidence/arguments that secure your acquittal might amount to a compelling case that you couldn't have done it. Or, they might not. You might, for example, be acquitted becauase evidence that conclusively proves your guilt is found to be inadmissible, because it was improperly obtained - e.g. found as a result of a search conducted after the search warrant had expired.

Thus there's no general rule that a finding of "not guilty" is tantamount to a finding that you didn't do it. Legally, it puts you on the same footing as someone who didn't do it, but that's not quite the same thing.

Which is one of the reasons why prosecution authorities tend not to proceed with a prosecution unless they are fairly confident of securing a conviction. Being prosecuted and acquitted can still be extremely damaging to someone, in terms of their relationships and reputation (not to mention their finances), and it's considered oppressive for the state to prosecute someone in order to inflict that damage when they don't expect to obtain a conviction.