Lying in Statement to Gardai

TimHorton

Hypothetically , A guy is involved in an assault and he is the aggressor , In an effort to distort the truth he lies in his statement to diminish his own guilt. Evidence emerges to prove he was lying , Is that an offence in itself ?

Phileas Frog

Perhaps

Wesser

Yes it is.

Giveaway

Wesser wrote: »

Yes it is.

Was giving a statement regarding criminal damage to my property. The form has a warning and lists penalty, the garda makes sure you understand this before signing the statement

TerrorFirmer

Yes, it's an offence to knowingly supply false information in a statement.

Peregrinus

Although of course to convict someone of the offence it's not enough to show that the information he supplied was false. You have to show that he knew, at the time he supplied it, that it was false. Showing that can be quite difficult.

Southdubin6

Peregrinus wrote: »

Although of course to convict someone of the offence it's not enough to show that the information he supplied was false. You have to show that he knew, at the time he supplied it, that it was false. Showing that can be quite difficult.

This is correct. Under cross examination a barrister would have it thrown on after prosecution couldn't establish intent unless the defence were brutal.

laotg

Giveaway wrote:

Was giving a statement regarding criminal damage to my property. The form has a warning and lists penalty, the garda makes sure you understand this before signing the statement

The statement contains a declaration by that person to the effect that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief and that he made the statement knowing that, if it were tendered in evidence, he would be liable to prosecution if he stated in it anything which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true.

If a guard suspects a false statement has been made he can consider prosecution but this will require a file to the DPP and they will decide.

Peregrinus

Southdubin6 wrote: »

This is correct. Under cross examination a barrister would have it thrown on after prosecution couldn't establish intent unless the defence were brutal.

Well, bear in mind that the defendant is very unlikely to be giving evidence at all, and so can't be cross-examined. The prosecution would have to call other witnesses to prove what the defendant knew at the time he gave the statement. A big ask.



That's why this offence is not often prosecuted, I'm guessing.

Southdubin6

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, bear in mind that the defendant is very unlikely to be giving evidence at all, and so can't be cross-examined. The prosecution would have to call other witnesses to prove what the defendant knew at the time he gave the statement. A big ask.



That's why this offence is not often prosecuted, I'm guessing.

Ok- I'm referring to the prosecuting Garda under CE as he wouldn't be able to prove intent as there is multiple plausible excuses.

Peregrinus

Southdubin6 wrote: »

Ok- I'm referring to the prosecuting Garda under CE as he wouldn't be able to prove intent as there is multiple plausible excuses.

Defence doesn't even have to offer an excuse. Onus is on the prosecution affirmatively to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant knew the information supplied was false. Unless they have something like a confession from the defendant or similar, I don't see how they can discharge this burden of proof.

Shefwedfan

Normally in assault cases the people are pissed, no matter what is in statement and shown if true/false they always have the fallback “I was drunk I can’t remember”

Southdubin6

Peregrinus wrote: »

Defence doesn't even have to offer an excuse. Onus is on the prosecution affirmatively to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant knew the information supplied was false. Unless they have something like a confession from the defendant or similar, I don't see how they can discharge this burden of proof.

Of course they need to offer an excuse can't just go in hand away defence opportunity and hope the prosecution don't pull a rabbit from a hat.

Peregrinus

Southdubin6 wrote: »

Of course they need to offer an excuse can't just go in hand away defence opportunity and hope the prosecution don't pull a rabbit from a hat.

No, they can wait for the prosecution to present its case and then ask for a dismissal on the grounds that the prosecution hasn't discharged the onus of proving the defendant's intent. Only if that fails do they have to worry about "offering an excuse". The problem with offering an excuse is that you'll have to put the defendant in the witness box to give his excuse and, once you do that, he can be cross-examined.