Can a court ever find you innocent in Ireland?

Sleeper12

I understand being found not guilty gives you the presumption of innocence but are there any circumstances where you can be found innocent by a court?

Proving your innocence through DNA after years in prison would the verdict just be overturned or would you be found innocent?

Fian

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I understand being found not guilty gives you the presumption of innocence but are there any circumstances where you can be found innocent by a court?

Proving your innocence through DNA after years in prison would the verdict just be overturned or would you be found innocent?

If you have been incorrectly convicted and sentenced in some circumstances you can apply to have the conviction quashed, which in some circumstances can be used to found a claim of compensation. This would only generally arise where there has been deliberate or inadvertent misbehaviour/malfeasance in some way by the prosecution.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/40/section/2/enacted/en/html


Other than that "not guilty" means you have been acquitted - essentially that you have been found to be innocent.

vonlars

No. You're either found guilty or not guilty.

If guilty and you can prove it years later, it's a Miscarriage of Justice - see the Criminal Procedure Act 1993, S2, S7 and S9. You can be granted a pardon at the discretion of the Minister for Justice, see the Harry Gleeson case. You'll never be 'found innocent' though.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I understand being found not guilty gives you the presumption of innocence...

Not quite. The presumption is always there meaning you are innocent until proven guilty. If found not guilty your status never changes.

4ensic15

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not quite. The presumption is always there meaning you are innocent until proven guilty. If found not guilty your status never changes.

The situation is that a finding of not guilty just means the prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. That could mean anything from a technical failure to prove something such as a statutory instrument or else that there was absolutely no basis for bringing the prosecution.

GM228

We had a good discussion on the topic previously here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057858710

I'll note two post of mine from that thread:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106634466&postcount=26

GM228 wrote: »

I think with regards the presumption of innocence, the vital point is that it simply states the accused must not prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove their guilt in accordance with law, that is not the same as saying the accused is innocent, but has that general effect.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106670701&postcount=38

GM228 wrote: »

It is not possible in law for a court to "prove" innocence.

There is a distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty", it's important to note that this distinction is relevant because of the way the criminal justice system works.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that the accused committed the crime. The reality is that our courts are not really concerned with if a person committed a crime or not, rather the issue is whether or not the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.

Remember Blackstone's ratio - "all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer", the criminal justice system agrees that wrongful imprisonment/punishment of an innocent person is unacceptable, and so we have the presumption of innocence.

As a result of the presumption the court doesn't place a burden on the accused to prove their innocence, rather there is a requirement for the prosecutor prove the accused guilty, the Golden Thread. If the prosecutor can't do that, then the defendant is "not guilty", and there's no need even to discuss whether the defendant is in fact innocent or not, nor is there a provision in law which allows for such.

In law "not guilty" simply means the prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and nothing more - the accused is not culpable for the crime they are accused of.

Sleeper12

GM228 wrote:

I'll note two post of mine from that thread:-

So those accused of holding Joan Bruton prisoner weren't found innocent as their supporters claim. They were found not guilty & have the presumption of innocence

sexmag

GM228 wrote: »

We had a good discussion on the topic previously here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057858710

I'll note two post of mine from that thread:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106634466&postcount=26



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106670701&postcount=38

Say a person A is brought to trial and given a verdict of guilty regarding a murder.

Footage released the next day shows person B committing said murder, is person A then found innocent and der facoto not guilty?

GM228

sexmag wrote: »

Say a person A is brought to trial and given a verdict of guilty regarding a murder.

Footage released the next day shows person B committing said murder, is person A then found innocent and der facoto not guilty?

No, the person would not be found not guilty per se if already found guilty, rather their conviction would need to be quashed and most likely declared a miscarriage of justice.

It's interesting to note that in such a circumstance the accused must apply to the court and prove on the balance of probabilities such a miscarriage of justice.