Pedestrian road accident

Angalia247

I was knocked down by a car while crossing into the enterence of an estate last week, ambulance and gardai were called, I couldn't speak with the guards because I was having x-Ray's but they said they would call during the week about making a statement. I got a call and I'm not sure if it was normal, the guards introduced himself giving his name and the station he works out of then asked how I was to which I replied "sore but that's to be expected" he then asked how long I had been in hospital and if anything was broken and whether Or not I could walk, I though this was a bit intrusive and odd so I moved the conversation on and told him that a written statement about the accident was being sent to him to which he replied in a very accusatory tone "have you been talking to a solicitor" I didn't really know what to say so I moved it on again and said the report would be sent to them, he asked if I was sending a medical report and asked 3 more times if I was talking to a solicitor and then he said "if you are you're not in trouble" and i told him I wasn't comfortable discussing these things over the phone and that my statement was being sent to them, then he insisted that I still had to come down to the station and that he had to read something to me and I can't remember what he said it was so I'm wondering if anyone who may have had to make a statement before might know why the gardai say/do before hand because as far as I know the victim doesn't have to have anything regarding their rights read to them, and if anyone else thinks the phone call sounds odd, it definitely was a guard too because he gave his name and the unit he works in and his phone number was the same as the stations number

punisher5112

You will be cautioned and told so because you will be giving a statement which you agree to be true.

Whether you are in the right or wrong both parties are cautioned.

Angalia247

punisher5112 wrote: »

You will be cautioned and told so because you will be giving a statement which you agree to be true.

Whether you are in the right or wrong both parties are cautioned.

Thanks so much I was definitely worried, I wasn't expecting to have to go into the station at all, I appreciate the info! In regards to the questions he was asking though, does it sound strange or am I just being paranoid?

Victor

punisher5112 wrote: »

You will be cautioned and told so because you will be giving a statement which you agree to be true.

Whether you are in the right or wrong both parties are cautioned.

Any witness statement I've done I've never been cautioned.

If there is a bank robbery, are all the witnesses cautioned?

brian_t

Victor wrote: »

Any witness statement I've done I've never been cautioned.

If there is a bank robbery, are all the witnesses cautioned?

You are the first poster to mention a witness statement.

Is a witness statement not different to a statement from someone actually involved in the incident.

GerardKeating

Victor wrote: »

Any witness statement I've done I've never been cautioned.

If there is a bank robbery, are all the witnesses cautioned?

Perhaps the driver is trying to blame the OP for the accident, but if that was the case, should AGS not advise the OP, rather than made a less that obvious hint.

punisher5112

Victor wrote: »

Any witness statement I've done I've never been cautioned.

If there is a bank robbery, are all the witnesses cautioned?

Well ive been a witness but ive also been involved so any where I was involved ive been cautioned.

Nothing to worry about.

You are asked to give a true account and it will be serious if one is found to make things up etc.

punisher5112

Angalia247 wrote: »

Thanks so much I was definitely worried, I wasn't expecting to have to go into the station at all, I appreciate the info! In regards to the questions he was asking though, does it sound strange or am I just being paranoid?

Nothing strange to be honest.
Each case will be different but the questioning is usually the same or similar.

He may be trying to scope you out or just some aren't great dealing with people at times.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

GerardKeating wrote: »

Perhaps the driver is trying to blame the OP for the accident, but if that was the case, should AGS not advise the OP, rather than made a less that obvious hint.

AGS don't caution you until they think that they might charge you. The don't do it just because someone else wants you charged.

I love Sean nos

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What would a pedestrian, struck by a car at the entrance to a housing estate, be open to charge for?

Peregrinus

I love Sean nos wrote: »

What would a pedestrian, struck by a car at the entrance to a housing estate, be open to charge for?

Road Traffic Act 1994 s. 35(1) allows the Minister to make regulations for the "general regulation and control of traffic (including the parking of vehicles) and pedestrians in public places".

Under s. 35(5), a person who contravenes those regulations "shall be guilty of an offence".

In exercise of the power conferred by s. 35(1), the Minister has made the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997, which include rules for pedestrians. One of those rules is "a pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians". So, depending on the facts giving rise to the accident, the pedestrian might face a charge of contravening that regulation.

There are other more specific regulations for pedestrians and - depending again on the actual facts of the accident, about which in this case I know nothing - some of them might be relevant. Thou shalt not cross against a red traffic light. Thou shalt not cross at a pedestrian crossing unless thou hast a green light. Except when crossing the road, thou shalt use the footway if one is provided. Thou shalt not cross within 15 metres of a pedestrian crossing, except actually at the crossing. And so forth.

Really Interested

I love Sean nos wrote: »

What would a pedestrian, struck by a car at the entrance to a housing estate, be open to charge for?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/7/section/35/enacted/en/html

5) (a) A person who contravenes a regulation under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.


(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.


(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.


(4) Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.


(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.


(6) Within a pedestrian crossing complex [traffic sign number RPC 002] a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing].


(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.


(8) For the purposes of this article, each carriageway of a dual carriageway shall be deemed to be a separate roadway, and where there is a traffic refuge on a roadway the portion of the roadway on each side of the refuge shall be deemed to be a separate roadway.

I love Sean nos

I was aware of some of these (2, 3, 6, 7 & 8), but not others (1, 4 & 5). A pedestrian causing danger to traffic?

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for any of these?

Really Interested

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I was aware of some of these (2, 3, 6, 7 & 8), but not others (1, 4 & 5). A pedestrian causing danger to traffic?

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for any of these?

A certain street in cork is mental after pub closing I have seen cases involving causing a danger to traffic as well public order.

I love Sean nos

Really Interested wrote: »

A certain street in cork is mental after pub closing I have seen cases involving causing a danger to traffic as well public order.

What exactly is the definition of traffic? Is it an abstract term? I'm curious how a human being, on foot, forms a danger to motorised vehicles, which are made of metal and fitted with safety features.

TheChizler

All this talk of the Garda prosecuting the OP is possibly jumping the gun. They just said they wanted them to make a statement and read something to them, possibly the other party's statement? OP you sound like you were very evasive starting when the Garda asked you how you were, no wonder the tone of the conversation got very awkward.

Sounds (to me but I'm not sure) like you've consulted a solicitor so maybe best to ask their advice on what to do if you're worried.

GM228

I love Sean nos wrote: »

What exactly is the definition of traffic?

Traffic isn't defined so we use the ordinary plane meaning, basically anything using the road is traffic weather it be vehicles, pedestrians, animals etc. Pedestrians are specifically excluded though from the definition of traffic for the 1997 regulations which is why R46(1) says "to traffic and other pedestrians" for example.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I'm curious how a human being, on foot, forms a danger to motorised vehicles, which are made of metal and fitted with safety features.

Your simply thinking of the damage side of things, obviously a car will do more damage to a person, but the person could cause the car to swerve or for example a pile-up, the pedestrian may be fine, but many vehicles could be damaged.

In any case R46 offences are few and far between and those who "know" the law know how to avoid them.

hullaballoo

AGS take statements themselves. As in, you as a witness go to the station and the member writes down your "statement" in their own language. A very strange practice.

However, what appears to be giving rise to confusion is that when this happens, you are warned about the consequences of lying in the statement and have to sort of swear up that the contents are true. That's not a statement made under caution, which is, as others have pointed out, only done where the person giving the statement is a "suspect" in that vernacular and the caution given would be reasonably familiar to most people, "you do not have to say anything but anything you do say may be used in court..." etc.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

AGS take statements themselves. As in, you as a witness go to the station and the member writes down your "statement" in their own language. A very strange practice.

However, what appears to be giving rise to confusion is that when this happens, you are warned about the consequences of lying in the statement and have to sort of swear up that the contents are true. That's not a statement made under caution, which is, as others have pointed out, only done where the person giving the statement is a "suspect" in that vernacular and the caution given would be reasonably familiar to most people, "you do not have to say anything but anything you do say may be used in court..." etc.

Spot on hullaballo, however I'll point out that the "may be used in court" is incorrect and a common misconception which stems from the US Miranda rights. Under Judges Rules "may be given in evidence" must be used.

Not sure if it came to it that it would be an issue though at trial.

hullaballoo

I knew I'd get it wrong! I've never arrested anyone. There isn't much difference between "given in court" and "given in evidence" but there would be a difficulty in including the "used against you" part of the US caution.

Victor

I love Sean nos wrote: »

What exactly is the definition of traffic? Is it an abstract term? I'm curious how a human being, on foot, forms a danger to motorised vehicles, which are made of metal and fitted with safety features.

Traffic includes cyclists and arguably users of mechanically propelled wheelchairs (especially when using a cycleway).

A pedestrian running into traffic could cause an erratic response, leading to a collision.

Lmklad

Wowa slow down guys. OP even if you provide a written account the guard must take a statement. Witness statements are proceeded by a declaration which states "This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that I will be liable for prosecution if I state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true" (may not be word perfect but it's the jist).

A witness statement is not usable as evidence unless preceded by that declaration. He may simply write out what you provide him with on statement paper as the statement must be taken in your language not his. Don't forget to ask for a copy of the statement for your solicitor, you're entitled to a copy as soon as you make the statement (your solicitor does not need to request it)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Lmklad

Incorrect Fred, they are vitally important for the DPP to decide if a prosecution is practicable, that's assuming the OP wishes the person prosecuted that is.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Well, yes, but if the DPP likes what he sees in the statement he can subpoena the witness.

Plus, if the DPP does decide to prosecute the witness statements are also furnished to the defence. If they like what they see, they can also subpoena the witness, even if the DPP doesn't.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Lmklad wrote: »

Wowa slow down guys. OP even if you provide a written account the guard must take a statement. Witness statements are proceeded by a declaration which states "This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that I will be liable for prosecution if I state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true" (may not be word perfect but it's the jist).

A witness statement is not usable as evidence unless preceded by that declaration.

This is not correct, assuming the statement becomes admissible (**see my reply below) it does not need the declaration, if a court is otherwise satisfied that when the statement was made that the witness understood the requirement to tell the truth then it is admissible.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes, but if the DPP likes what he sees in the statement he can subpoena the witness.

Indeed, however the witness can refuse to answer any questions meaning the statements are still useless.

**An exception arises in the case of an arrestable offence where the statement may become admissible with leave of the court subject to certain conditions.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, however the witness can refuse to answer any questions meaning the statements are still useless.

Can he refuse to testify if he is subpoenaed? (Assume he he is not the defendant.)

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can he refuse to testify if he is subpoenaed? (Assume he he is not the defendant.)

A witness (unless a spouse for certain offences, diplomats etc) is compelled to answer.

However that does not stop someone from refusing to answer and contempt of court applies.

Peregrinus

Well, in that situation, if the prosecution calls a witness from whom they have a statement but the witness refuses to answer, can the prosecution have them declared a hostile witness and then put their statement to them? And, that way, put the contents of the statement before the jury?

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, in that situation, if the prosecution calls a witness from whom they have a statement but the witness refuses to answer, can the prosecution have them declared a hostile witness and then put their statement to them? And, that way, put the contents of the statement before the jury?

Just because you are declared a hostile witness does not mean your statement will become admissible though, the relevant part of the your statement could indeed be put to the you as evidence that you had made a previous contradictory statement, as evidence impugning your credibility, but it would not be evidence of the fact contained in the statement.

The statement may however become admissible in the context of the overall trial subject to leave of the court and only for an arrestable offence.