What's the difference between civil and criminal cases in Ireland?

Ahhhh for forks sake!

A I right in saying that civil cases are crimes against a person and criminal are crimes against the state? All criminal cases are indictable and are not subject to the statute of limitations.

For example, in a murder case, obviously the victim cannot complain, so the defendant is answerable to the state.

Is this the same in rape cases? Once the complainant makes the complaint, is it the alleged victim who takes the case or the state? Is the victim just a "witness" then? Because the crime is against the state and not the person. Does this mean that once the case is going, the complainant cannot stop it, only the state can?

Am I correct in saying that indictable means not subject to any statute of limitations?

godtabh

Maurice Riordan wrote: »

A I right in saying that civil cases are crimes against a person and criminal are crimes against the state? All criminal cases are indictable and are not subject to the statute of limitations.

For example, in a murder case, obviously the victim cannot complain, so the defendant is answerable to the state.

Is this the same in rape cases? Once the complainant makes the complaint, is it the alleged victim who takes the case or the state? Is the victim just a "witness" then? Because the crime is against the state and not the person. Does this mean that once the case is going, the complainant cannot stop it, only the state can?

Am I correct in saying that indictable means not subject to any statute of limitations?

Isn’t a civil case a case brought by person while a criminal case is brought by the state? Different levels of proof also

Ahhhh for forks sake!

godtabh wrote: »

Isn’t a civil case a case brought by person while a criminal case is brought by the state? Different levels of proof also

So a rape case in Ireland is brought by the government even though the victim is still alive?

GM228

godtabh wrote: »

Isn’t a civil case a case brought by person while a criminal case is brought by the state? Different levels of proof also

Criminal cases can also be initiated by a private person, any person.

GM228

Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. As such they are generally taken by the state via the DPP (or by AGS in the name of the DPP) for the majority of crimes, but they can also be taken by organisations such as Revenue, Irish Rail, An Post etc, but as I said previously criminal cases can be initiated by any one. Crimes are both indictable and summary.

Basically criminal law punishes for crimes against the state (which are proscribed by statute or common law), whilst civil law looks for redress for wrongs to a person (natural or legal), in other words it protects people from each others wrongs.

Also note that criminal law and civil law are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a person to be prosecuted for criminal conduct and then face civil action for the same conduct. Because the standard of proof is higher in criminal law than civil law, it is not unknown for civil actions to succeed, even if the accused was acquitted in a criminal trial.

The state by the way can also be a private party in a civil case.

tracey turnblad

Maurice Riordan wrote: »

So a rape case in Ireland is brought by the government even though the victim is still alive?

The victim will be a witness

El Weirdo

Maurice Riordan wrote: »

So a rape case in Ireland is brought by the government even though the victim is still alive?

No, the state. There's a difference.

NUTLEY BOY

tracey turnblad wrote: »

The victim will be a witness

By "victim" I take it that you refer to the complainant.

NUTLEY BOY

GM228 wrote: »

Criminal cases can also be initiated by a private person, any person.

If a private prosecution is initiated above the level of the District Court is the DPP entitled to intervene and take over the prosecution ?

Claw Hammer

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If a private prosecution is initiated above the level of the District Court is the DPP entitled to intervene and take over the prosecution ?

A private prosecution can only be initiated in the District Court.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If a private prosecution is initiated above the level of the District Court is the DPP entitled to intervene and take over the prosecution ?

Not only are they entitled to, but they must take it forward.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A private prosecution can only be initiated in the District Court.

This is incorrect, anybody can initiate a private prosecution for any type of offence (summary or indictable).

For indictable or indictable tried summarily you must have permission of the DPP to initiate and you can only go to the point of return for trial after which the DPP must take over for indictable. All reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015.

In the case of a summary offence anyone can take a case under the common informer system in which case no permission is required and the DPP can not intervene.

Edit, took you up wrong in what you were saying there Claw Hammer, clarified by my next post.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

This is incorrect, anybody can initiate a private prosecution for any type of offence (summary or indictable).

For indictable or indictable tried summarily you must have permission of the DPP to initiate and you can only go to the point of return for trial after which the DPP must take over. All reaffirmed by the Suprene Court in 2015.

In the case of a summary offence anyone can take a case under the common informer system in which case no permission is required and the DPP can not intervene.

The case is initiated in the District Court only. What the Supreme Court said is that the DPP must take over in the event that it is indictable or else allow it to be tried summarily. The vast majority of Criminal cases are initiated in the District Court and all private ones must be. Where they go after that is a different matter.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The case is initiated in the District Court only. What the Supreme Court said is that the DPP must take over in the event that it is indictable or else allow it to be tried summarily. The vast majority of Criminal cases are initiated in the District Court and all private ones must be. Where they go after that is a different matter.

Yes of course, I was taking you up wrong in thinking you meant only summary offences can be initiated privately, I mis-read your post.

To note also is that an indictable tried summarily case needs approval of the DPP, but does not need to be taken forward by them.

Ahhhh for forks sake!

El Weirdo wrote: »

No, the state. There's a difference.

That's what I meant. My mistake.

If a victim of rape is a witness and rape is a criminal offence does that mean that the state can start a trial if someone else witnessed and reported the rape even if the victim didn't want to?

Does that mean that the victim HAS to give evidence and theoretically they can be charged with withholding evidence if they didn't want to talk about it?

GM228

Maurice Riordan wrote: »

If a victim of rape is a witness and rape is a criminal offence does that mean that the state can start a trial if someone else witnessed and reported the rape even if the victim didn't want to?

Depends on the situation and age of the alleged victim, if they are an adult and not willing to offer any statement/evidence most likely not as they are the key witness to amongst other things the key issue of consent, with a minor however that would be a different matter.

Maurice Riordan wrote: »

Does that mean that the victim HAS to give evidence and theoretically they can be charged with withholding evidence if they didn't want to talk about it?

A witness can be compelled to give evidence in court, does not mean they will though, but if they made no statement in the first place it won't happen.

There was an offence of witholding information which will lead to the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for a serious offence, but it was declared unconstitutional last year as we are afforded a constitutional right of silence.

Claw Hammer

The victim doesn't have to give evidence and in some cases can't give oral evidence, such as the rape of a person who is mentally retarded or too young to the point of not understanding what happened. It makes it more difficult for the prosecution to prove their case if the victim doesn't give evidence.

Ahhhh for forks sake!

Is attempted murder tried on indictment? Is it subject to any limitations?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

goz83

GM228 wrote: »

Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. As such they are generally taken by the state via the DPP (or by AGS in the name of the DPP) for the majority of crimes, but they can also be taken by organisations such as Revenue, Irish Rail, An Post etc, but as I said previously criminal cases can be initiated by any one. Crimes are both indictable and summary.

Basically criminal law punishes for crimes against the state (which are proscribed by statute or common law), whilst civil law looks for redress for wrongs to a person (natural or legal), in other words it protects people from each others wrongs.

Also note that criminal law and civil law are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a person to be prosecuted for criminal conduct and then face civil action for the same conduct. Because the standard of proof is higher in criminal law than civil law, it is not unknown for civil actions to succeed, even if the accused was acquitted in a criminal trial.

The state by the way can also be a private party in a civil case.

That’s interesting. I would have thought an acquittal in a criminal trial would stand for a civil action.

Does a criminal complaint need to be dealt with first, or can a civil action be taken before a criminal trial concludes?

Peregrinus

goz83 wrote: »

That’s interesting. I would have thought an acquittal in a criminal trial would stand for a civil action.

OJ Simpson can tell you otherwise!

goz83 wrote: »

Does a criminal complaint need to be dealt with first, or can a civil action be taken before a criminal trial concludes?

You can pursue the civil action first, SFAIK, but for tactical reasons you generally wouldn't.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can pursue the civil action first, SFAIK, but for tactical reasons you generally wouldn't.

Indeed you can, although generally when that does happen the defendant will try put a stay on proceedings until after criminal proceedings, but they don't always get such an order.

ohnonotgmail

goz83 wrote: »

That’s interesting. I would have thought an acquittal in a criminal trial would stand for a civil action.

Does a criminal complaint need to be dealt with first, or can a civil action be taken before a criminal trial concludes?

civil actions have a lower standard of proof than criminal cases.

Claw Hammer

goz83 wrote: »

That’s interesting. I would have thought an acquittal in a criminal trial would stand for a civil action.

Does a criminal complaint need to be dealt with first, or can a civil action be taken before a criminal trial concludes?

It happens a lot in traffic cases. A person may be charged with dangerous or careless driving and be acquitted but still found liable in negligence to the injured part arising out of the same incident of alleged dangerous driving. If a person pleads guilty in the criminal case, this can be used against them in the civil case but it doesn't work the other way round.

goz83

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can pursue the civil action first, SFAIK, but for tactical reasons you generally wouldn't.

Thinking of the recent Belfast case as an example...if that case had of been taken in the republic, the complainant could have taken a civil case against the defendants before the criminal trial started, or concluded? I think that's a bit backwards tbh (not saying you're wrong, I believe what you say, it just seems mad).

If such a complainant took a civil case first, wouldn't it better prepare them and their legal team for a criminal case and potentially prejudice the defendants?

And finally, what would happen if the complainant had taken a civil case before a decision had been taken to bring a criminal case to court? Some cases take a year or more to be processed by the DPP afaik...and sometimes (and this is bar stool hear'say...so I don't know) the accused never hears from the DPP so is left hanging for years.

Peregrinus

goz83 wrote: »

Thinking of the recent Belfast case as an example...if that case had of been taken in the republic, the complainant could have taken a civil case against the defendants before the criminal trial started, or concluded? I think that's a bit backwards tbh (not saying you're wrong, I believe what you say, it just seems mad).

If such a complainant took a civil case first, wouldn't it better prepare them and their legal team for a criminal case and potentially prejudice the defendants?

And finally, what would happen if the complainant had taken a civil case before a decision had been taken to bring a criminal case to court? Some cases take a year or more to be processed by the DPP afaik...and sometimes (and this is bar stool hear'say...so I don't know) the accused never hears from the DPP so is left hanging for years.

Tactically, it makes generally sense for the plaintiff to commence the civil proceedings (to stop the statute of limitations running) and then let them sit while the criminal proceedings play out. The criminal proceedings are supported by the investigative resources of the state, and much that is useful to the plaintiff may emerge in the criminal proceedings (including, obviously, a conviction).

If it becomes apparent that the criminal proceedings are running into the sand, or will simply take too long, the plaintiff can go ahead. But the benefits of waiting are considerable, so plaintiffs will be slow to do this.

I'm not sure I understand your point about a plaintiff taking civil proceedings to "better prepare them and their legal team for a criminal case". The plaintiff won't be a party in the criminal case, just a witness, and won't have legal team in that case. Plus, of the two cases, they are more interested in the outcome of the civil case; that is the one which is going to provide them with compensation, redress, a remedy.

goz83

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your point about a plaintiff taking civil proceedings to "better prepare them and their legal team for a criminal case". The plaintiff won't be a party in the criminal case, just a witness, and won't have legal team in that case. Plus, of the two cases, they are more interested in the outcome of the civil case; that is the one which is going to provide them with compensation, redress, a remedy.

My thinking was that if a plaintiff took a civil case first and there was no stay put on the pending criminal case, then the outcome of the civil case would in some way influence the outcome of the criminal case due to the information shared in the civil case.

I would imagine the prosecution side in the criminal case would be interested in any and all information shared in the civil case, which (imho) would give the prosecution an advantage they would not have had if a civil case had not gone before the criminal one. But then perhaps the prosecution would have no view, or no scope to discuss the civil case?

Peregrinus

goz83 wrote: »

My thinking was that if a plaintiff took a civil case first and there was no stay put on the pending criminal case, then the outcome of the civil case would in some way influence the outcome of the criminal case due to the information shared in the civil case.

I would imagine the prosecution side in the criminal case would be interested in any and all information shared in the civil case, which (imho) would give the prosecution an advantage they would not have had if a civil case had not gone before the criminal one. But then perhaps the prosecution would have no view, or no scope to discuss the civil case?

No, they could, and it's possible that something might come out in the civil case that they might otherwise have missed.

Possible, but not very likely. The prosecution in a criminal case have vastly better investigative resources than the plaintiff in a civil case would have and, beside, the plaintiff in the civil case would generally be keen to co-operate with the prosecution. If the plaintiff knows something relevant or important they are likely to pass it to the prosecution, rather than waiting for the prosecution to find out about it when the civil case comes to hearing.

goz83

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they could, and it's possible that something might come out in the civil case that they might otherwise have missed.

Possible, but not very likely. The prosecution in a criminal case have vastly better investigative resources than the plaintiff in a civil case would have and, beside, the plaintiff in the civil case would generally be keen to co-operate with the prosecution. If the plaintiff knows something relevant or important they are likely to pass it to the prosecution, rather than waiting for the prosecution to find out about it when the civil case comes to hearing.

I see. So what makes the most sense (in most cases) is for the complainant to make a criminal complaint, then put in a civil case, but hope that the criminal case concludes first whether that be by chance, or by the judge putting a stay on the civil case.

I know the burden of proof is higher for criminal cases, but it does seem a bit mad that a defendant could win a criminal case and then lose a civil one (talking about serious crimes....not your average RTA).

Peregrinus

goz83 wrote: »

I see. So what makes the most sense (in most cases) is for the complainant to make a criminal complaint, then put in a civil case, but hope that the criminal case concludes first whether that be by chance, or by the judge putting a stay on the civil case.

I know the burden of proof is higher for criminal cases, but it does seem a bit mad that a defendant could win a criminal case and then lose a civil one (talking about serious crimes....not your average RTA).

OJ Simpson probably thinks it's mad as well. But I dare say you'll find the family of Nicole Brown Simpson think it makes perfect sense.

Plus, it's not just a question of the higher standard of proof; often you have to prove different things. In order to convict you of murder or manslaughter, the state needs to show intention or recklessness. But in order to have you found liable for wrongful death, the family of the deceased only need to show that you were negligent. Which means that lots of people recover compensation in wrongful death cases where there would be no possiblity of a criminal conviction.