No Case to answer after Garda Investigation for assault - Affect on Civil case

TimHorton

Hypothetical Situation

1. Complaint Made to Gardai

2. CCTV shows assault

3. Admits Physical Contact but claims was afraid other party was going to strike so struck first.

4. Serious Injury sustained

Gardai Investigation Outcome - No Case to Answer - Case closed.

Civil Case for Personal Injury still an option based on CCTV/Admission that they struck other party ?

Samuel T. Cogley

Theoretically and hypothetically yes.

Hypothetically has the aggressor got any money to be going after?

TimHorton

Aggressor appears to be a person of means

Samuel T. Cogley

Be careful though (Hypotheoretically):

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.

If the defence is 'I thought the other would strike first' did the 'victim' do anything to make the 'aggressor' think so.

Is civil assault/battery defined differently?

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Be careful though (Hypotheoretically):

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.

If the defence is 'I thought the other would strike first' did the 'victim' do anything to make the 'aggressor' think so.

Is civil assault/battery defined differently?

The standard of proof is different. Also, assault can be tried before a jury. Defending a jury assault case calls for deep pockets.

Samuel T. Cogley

4ensic15 wrote: »

The standard of proof is different. Also, assault can be tried before a jury. Defending a jury assault case calls for deep pockets.

Thanks.

So they would rely on the statue definition in the civil case? Apart from only needing to be proved on balance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Peregrinus

The statutory definition of the criminal offence is formally irrelevant to any civil case. As it happens, the concept of "assault" is basically the same for civil and criminal purposes, but there's no point in citing the criminal statute to show that. And why would you even want to show that? It can make no difference at all to the outcome of the civil case.

Formally, the fact that the guards decided not to prosecute has no bearing at all on a civil claim, and there is no reason why it would even be mentioned in the trial of the civil claim. Tactically, though, it's worth reflecting on why the guards decided not to prosecute, given that the actual incident was caught on camera and the video does (I presume) show A striking B.

The guards interviewed both A and B. If you're A, you know what you said to the guards but you don't know what B said. (You may be able to guess, with a high or low degree of confidence, but you don't know.) Vice versa if you're B.

Lee's assume that you're B, the (alleged, but I'm not going to keep repeating that) victim. You are considering suing A. What conclusions do you draw from the fact that the guards are not prosecuting A?

The conclusion is that the guards are not confident that they can show, beyond reasonable doubt, that A is guilty. They can certainly prove the physical side of the assault, so that's not the problem. You know, or think you know, that A said, in effect, "Yes, I hit him, but his words/actions put me in fear of immediate assault and I had to defend myself". In a criminal trial, if A pleaded this, it would be up to him to prove it but (unlike the prosecution) he only has to prove it on the balance of probabilities, so if he can show that it is more likely than not that your words/actions put him in fear and his striking you was a reasonable response to the situation he was in, his defence will succeed.

Right. So why do the guards think he can probably show that? Is there anything in your own statement that would tend to corroborate his claim of self-defence? Does your statement refer to an altercation, threats, heated exchanges? Or, is there anything in your past relationship with A which would make such claims credible? Or, do you have form here? (I.e. have you ever assaulted anyone else?)

(I'm not looking for you to answer these questions here. I'm saying that these are the questions you need to be asking yourself.)

Basically, what the no-prosecution decision may suggest is that the guards probably think that A's claim to have been acting in self defence does have some legs. At the very least, they don't think they could demolish it, based on what is contained in the two statements they have from A and B (and any statements they may have got from other witnesses.) Which should make you think twice before launching civil proceedings. If the guards couldn't refute a claim of self-defence by A, could you?