Criminal damage

AlanM20152018

Hi Lads just asking would anyone know the law regarding criminal damage . I've been charged with criminal damage regarding a broken window in a house which was subletted illegally by the owner who by the way hasn't pressed charges would I be right in saying the tenant-complainant has no right to be making a complaint as technically he had no proper lease or tenancy agreement so therefore it wasn't his property damaged the owner of the house has never made a complaint is this charge sheet legal. I'd appreciate any feedback on the matter.

MadDog76

What?

Caranica

Did you damage the window?

Og81

AlanM20152018 wrote: »

Hi Lads just asking would anyone the law regarding criminal damage . I've been charged with criminal damage regarding a broken window in a house which was subletted illegally by the owner who by the way hasn't pressed charges would I be right in saying the tenant-complainant has no right to be making a complaint as technically he had no proper lease or tenancy agreement so therefore it wasn't his property damaged the owner of the house has never made a complaint is this charge sheet legal. I'd appreciate any feedback on the matter.

If you broke the window and there is evidence you broke it leases are irrelevant.

AlanM20152018

Og81 wrote: »

If you broke the window and there is evidence you broke it leases are irrelevant.

I didn't break the window and there's no proof to suggest I did. The point I'm making is that the person who reported it doesn't own the property and had no official lease so therefore how can he take a case against me shouldn't that be up to the owner of the property.

ohnonotgmail

AlanM20152018 wrote: »

I didn't break the window and there's no proof to suggest I did. The point I'm making is that the person who reported it doesn't own the property and had no official lease so therefore how can he take a case against me shouldn't that be up to the owner of the property.

be isn't taking a case against you. He made a complaint against you. The state of their lease is irrelevant

cobhguy28

In the court it has to be shown who owns the broken item and that they haven't given permission for it to be broken.

AlanM20152018

cobhguy28 wrote: »

In the court it has to be shown who owns the broken item and that they haven't given permission for it to be broken.

Yes but if the owner has no issues then why should the complainant who no longer lives there or shouldn't have ever.

ohnonotgmail

AlanM20152018 wrote: »

Yes but if the owner has no issues then why should the complainant who no longer lives there or shouldn't have ever.

I didn't break the window and there's no proof to suggest I did.

what are you worried about?

AlanM20152018

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what are you worried about?

I'm not worried in the slightest just interested in the Legal side of things.

ohnonotgmail

AlanM20152018 wrote: »

I'm not worried in the slightest just interested in the Legal side of things.

the legal side has already been explained to you. Anybody can make a complaint to the gardai. The gardai dont need the property owners permission to take a case to court. I have no idea why you thought a lease was relevant.

drunkmonkey

AlanM20152018 wrote: »

I didn't break the window and there's no proof to suggest I did.

Well somebody made a statement to say you did break it, so there's the proof a witness.

Victor

If having a criminal convictionn is a problem for you, you would be well advised talking to a solicitor.

cobhguy28 wrote: »

In the court it has to be shown who owns the broken item and that they haven't given permission for it to be broken.

So:
* If neither occupier nor landlord consented to it being broken -> potential criminal damage charge.
* If occupier consented to it being broken, but not the landlord -> potential criminal damage charge and/or amount charged contractually / deducted from deposit.
* If landlord consented to it being broken, but not the occupier -> potential intimidation charge and/or breach of contract.
* If both occupier and landlord consented to it being broken -> civil matter.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/31/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2

Damaging property.

2.—(1) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

(a) intending to damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be damaged, and

(b) intending by the damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person who damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another, with intent to defraud shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) An offence committed under this section by damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, and

(b) on conviction on indictment—

(i) in case the person is guilty of arson under subsection (1) or (3) or of an offence under subsection (2) (whether arson or not), to a fine or imprisonment for life or both, and

(ii) in case the person is guilty of any other offence under this section, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

(6) For the purposes of this section a person is reckless if he has foreseen that the particular kind of damage that in fact was done might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/31/section/6/enacted/en/html#sec6

“Without lawful excuse”.

6.—(1) This section applies to—

(a) any offence under section 2 (1) or 5 ,

(b) any offence under section 3 other than one involving a threat by the person charged to damage property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of another, and

(c) any offence under section 4 other than one involving an intent by the person charged to use, or cause or permit the use of, something in his custody or under his control to damage property in such a way as aforesaid.

(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—

(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to or authorise the damage to (or, in the case of an offence under section 5 , the accessing of) the property in question had consented, or would have consented to or authorised it if he or they had known of the damage or the accessing and its circumstances,

[Deleted http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/11/section/13/enacted/en/html ]

[Amended] (c) if he damaged or threatened to damage the property in question or, in the case of an offence under section 4, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to damage it, in order to protect himself or another or property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another and the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence were reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be. [/Amended]

[Amended?] (i) that he or that other or the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection, and

(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. [/Amended?]

(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) a right or interest in property includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant, licence or otherwise.

(5) This section shall not be construed as casting doubt on any defence recognised by law as a defence to criminal charges.

There may be other amendments, but they don't seem to be relevant. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/isbc/1991_31.html

drunkmonkey

What proof is required besides a witness. Do they need to even show a picture of the window or is the witness "said" good enough to convict.

Victor

AlanM20152018 wrote: »

a house which was subletted illegally by the owner

Surely an owner lets a property, not sub-lets it? Only a tenant can sub-let. Sub-letting, in itself, is not illegal. The mere fact that a landlord or tenant haven't complied with all their obligations doesn't make the letting itself illegal - the difference between a void and voidable contract.

Unless there is some restriction like this is a former council house with a restricted covenant, I can't see why an owner can't let, or indeed sub-let.

who by the way hasn't pressed charges would I be right in saying the tenant-complainant has no right to be making a complaint as technically he had no proper lease or tenancy agreement so therefore it wasn't his property damaged the owner of the house has never made a complaint is this charge sheet legal. I'd appreciate any feedback on the matter.

Note that the owner isn't the only one with rights http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/31/section/1/enacted/en/html#sec1

Interpretation.

1.—(2) Property shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as belonging to any person—

(a) having lawful custody or control of it,

(b) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest), or

(c) having a charge over it.

AlanM20152018 wrote: »

Yes but if the owner has no issues then why should the complainant who no longer lives there or shouldn't have ever.

The court would look to whether they lived there at the time in determining the consent issues.

---

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What proof is required besides a witness. Do they need to even show a picture of the window or is the witness "said" good enough to convict.

It's down to whoever is the more believable witness. Having photographs, video, etc. of the act of damage and the after effects would be useful.

---

Is this homework?

AlanM20152018

The case is built on word of mouth no video evidence no weapon found which was used to break it so I can't see how a charge can be brought is that not just hearsay.

drunkmonkey

AlanM20152018 wrote: »

The case is built on word of mouth no video evidence no weapon found which was used to break it so I can't see how a charge can be brought is that not just hearsay.

Did you get the book of evidence yet?

Your going to need to engage a solicitor. It's a very flimsy case going on what you've said, doesn't stop the guards from running with it so you'll still have to defend yourself.

AlanM20152018

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Did you get the book of evidence yet?

Your going to need to engage a solicitor. It's a very flimsy case going on what you've said, doesn't stop the guards from running with it so you'll still have to defend yourself.

I'm in district court Tuesday where I'm told I'll be receiving a book of evidence I may give a solicitor a call in the morning just didn't think it was needed based on what the guard has informed me. It's a ridiculous case involving a relation who was under the opinion I was sleeping with his partner. The only video evidence is from a shop in town which sees me walking in that direction which is also the route I need to take to get to my own house after finishing work.

FishOnABike

If you didn't break the window and there's no proof to suggest you did why are you being charged with criminal damage?

Other than the rare case of a private prosecution it is the Gardaí / DPP who prosecute based on whatever statements / evidence there is.

Ownership, tenancy, letting, subletting are largely irrelevant as it is not the owner (or tenant) who would usually prosecute the case.

FishOnABike

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Well somebody made a statement to say you did break it, so there's the proof a witness.

If somebody has made a false statement might it be worthwhile for the OP to make an official complaint regarding that false statement. It is , after all, a offense to knowingly make a false statement.

I think a solicitor would be helpful to advise what would be best for you to do, before court next Tuesday, in court to ensure whatever applications for book of evidence etc. are made, and what subsequent course of action to take depending on what is in the book of evidence.

drunkmonkey

FishOnABike wrote: »

If somebody has made a false statement might it be worthwhile for the OP to make an official complaint regarding that false statement. It is , after all, a offense to knowingly make a false statement.

How can he prove it's false. Pretty much the same for the prosecution how can they prove it's true once he offers his defence.
Don't think there's any point making a statement now as that will happen in court also he doesn't know the evidence against him yet.

Peregrinus

AlanM20152018 wrote: »

The case is built on word of mouth no video evidence no weapon found which was used to break it so I can't see how a charge can be brought is that not just hearsay.

Lots of cases are won on the testimony of witnesses; this is the principle form of evidence in courts.

The testimony of witnesses is not "hearsay". Hearsay is when I tell you something I heard from someone else, but have no direct knowledge of myself. Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in Irish courts (though there are exceptions).

Do not get hung up on whether the guy who made the complaint is an owner, tenant, occupier, whatever of the property you are supposed to have damaged. In the criminal case against you he's a witness, that's all. The nature of his right or interest, if any, in the property is completely irrelevant to the evidence he will give, or to its effect or credibility.

You write about the evidence the prosecution doesn't have - no video evidence, no sign of an implement used to break the window, etc. That's not what you need to be thinking about at this point. The prosecution's case is not going to depend on the evidence they don't have; it will depend on the evidence they do have, about which you have told us nothing (and, I assume, know nothing).This is what you need to focus on. Find out what the prosecution case is, what evidence they are going to present, and take advice from a solicitor.

I cannot stress that last point too strongly. No offence, but your own approach to this, as shown in this thread, seems to focus on issues that are marginal or irrelevant, and to be driven by misconceptions about how a prosucution works. I don't say this to criticise you, but to urge on you the importance of having the matter looked at by someone who (a) has the technical knowledge to assess the case, and (b) is not as emotionally invested in it as you are.

NUTLEY BOY

In utterly simple terms the prosecution must prove the charge.
The standard of proof is that of establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Witnesses may give evidence which is rejected in whole or in part.
It does not follow automatically that rejected evidence is perjured evidence.

I wholeheartedly endorse other posters observations about legal advice. I trust that you have not spoken to Gardai without the assistance of a solicitor.

drunkmonkey

Is a witness statement strong enough on it's own to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Does the prosecution even need to show there was a window broken or do they take the witness statement as evidence it did happen.
Is the type of window relevant, as in could the witness claim he broke a triple glazed €500 window as opposed to a €50 window. What I'm getting at there is without proof of the broken window the witness could be trying to make financial gain.

Peregrinus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Is a witness statement strong enough on it's own to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Does the prosecution even need to show there was a window broken or do they take the witness statement as evidence it did happen.

It's a witness statement now, but at the trial the witness will turn up and give evidence in person. He can be challenged and cross-examined on it. The court considers the oral evidence given by the witness at the trial, not the contents of his earlier witness statement.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Is the type of window relevant, as in could the witness claim he broke a triple glazed €500 window as opposed to a €50 window. What I'm getting at there is without proof of the broken window the witness could be trying to make financial gain.

The type of window is not relevant to the charge. Criminal damage is criminal damage, regardless of the value of the window. It might go to sentencing, though - a heavier sentence for more costly damage.

It's no benefit to the witness to lie about the nature of the window. He doesn't get any money or award of damages for acting as a witness. If he does lie, he can be challenged on cross-examination, and if his lying is exposed on the value of the window, that can be used to undermine the credibility of his entire testimony, suggesting that he is actuated by malice or, at the very least, is not a reliable or trustworthy witness.

And of course there's nothing to stop the defendant giving evidence, or calling his own witnesses to give evidence. If the defendant is familiar with the premises he can give evidence that the window was not triple-glazed.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's no benefit to the witness to lie about the nature of the window. He doesn't get any money or award of damages for acting as a witness. If he does lie, he can be challenged on cross-examination, and if his lying is exposed on the value of the window, that can be used to undermine the credibility of his entire testimony, suggesting that he is actuated by malice or, at the very least, is not a reliable or trustworthy witness.

Unless, of course, it is the witness who is the one who owns / has responsibility for / has repaired the window.

Criminal Damage Act, 1991 allows compensation order to be made.

Under His Eye

Why is a simple criminal damage charge going to the circuit?

ohnonotgmail

Under His Eye wrote: »

Why is a simple criminal damage charge going to the circuit?

who mentioned circuit court?

drunkmonkey

Victor wrote: »

Unless, of course, it is the witness who is the one who owns / has responsibility for / has repaired the window.

Criminal Damage Act, 1991 allows compensation order to be made.

What happens if the window owner was claiming a triple glazed but it turns out the defence has evidence to prove it was single glazed.
Would the change still stand even though the owner/witness has been shown to have lied in court or their statement.

Under His Eye

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who mentioned circuit court?

There is a book of evidence.

ohnonotgmail

Under His Eye wrote: »

There is a book of evidence.

Good point. I think there must be a lot more to this if the DPP is proceeding to trial.

drunkmonkey

Under His Eye wrote: »

There is a book of evidence.

You don't need to go to the circuit court for a book of evidence.

ohnonotgmail

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You don't need to go to the circuit court for a book of evidence.

the book of evidence is presented at a district court sitting but if there is a book of evidence there will be a trial in the circuit court. at least that is my understanding.

drunkmonkey

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the book of evidence is presented at a district court sitting but if there is a book of evidence there will be a trial in the circuit court. at least that is my understanding.

Depends on the crime, district court in this case. He'll be given the book of evidence after tomorrow. Think they're 42days.

Peregrinus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What happens if the window owner was claiming a triple glazed but it turns out the defence has evidence to prove it was single glazed.
Would the change still stand even though the owner/witness has been shown to have lied in court or their statement.

The prosecution case is greatly weakened if their principal witness is shown to be unreliable. But the case doesn't automatically collapse; it depends on what other witnesses/evidence the prosecution has. It's for the District Judge (in the District Court) or the jury (in the Circuit Court) to weigh up all the evidence presented and decide if, taken together, it's enough to prove the charge.

Claw Hammer

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Depends on the crime, district court in this case. He'll be given the book of evidence after tomorrow. Think they're 42days.

If there is going to be a trial in the district court there will be no book of evidence. There may have been some disclosure ordered. In any case people in glasshouses should not throw stones.

GM228

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Depends on the crime, district court in this case. He'll be given the book of evidence after tomorrow. Think they're 42days.

No, as others have stated a Book of Evidence is only presented at District Court when going forward to trial.

In other words you only get a BoE when tried on indictment, for a summary trial at District Court level there is no BoE.