Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Civil Recourse to someone making a false statement to AGS

  • 09-03-2019 7:33am
    #1
    TimHorton
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭


    Completely Hypothetical Scenario ,

    Man A Lies to Gardai in an effort to get Man B prosecuted for a crime., Man B Produces Material evidence to prove Man A was lying ,

    Is there any way Man B can pursue Man A with for the distress/damage caused.


Comments

  • #2
    Giveaway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 382 ✭✭Giveaway


    One could hire a lawyer to collate and present the evidence in a formal letter of complaint to the local garda superintendent to trigger an investigation and hopefully file to DPP.
    Private prosecution rare but possible(common law)


  • #3
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,636 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    Would taking a civil case for defamation be an option?

    One would have to consider the Streisand effect and whether it is worth the cost of taking a civil case vs the probability of damages and costs being awarded or recoverable.


  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Why a civil case?
    Making a false statement to gardai is a criminal offence. If there is evidence that has been done surely it can be prosecuted criminally first.
    Any civil recourse would be easy after that.
    All assuming, that there is actual evidence that the statement was knowingly false, of course..


  • #5
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,580 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Why a civil case?
    It's more likely to produce compensation.


  • #6
    IsaacWunder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 398 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    B could sue A for defamation.

    The defamation act allows A the defence of qualified privilege, which making a Garda report would cover, however that does not apply where B can prove A made the statement with malice.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,636 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    IsaacWunder wrote: »
    B could sue A for defamation.

    The defamation act allows A the defence of qualified privilege, which making a Garda report would cover, however that does not apply where B can prove A made the statement with malice.
    This would then reverse the burden of proof from the default in a defamation case of A having to prove what they claimed was true to B having to prove A's 'honest mistake' was made with malice.

    This might tip the balance against B taking a civil case against A as proving malice could be a fairly high hurdle.


  • #8
    IsaacWunder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 398 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    FishOnABike wrote: »
    This would then reverse the burden of proof from the default in a defamation case of A having to prove what they claimed was true to B having to prove A's 'honest mistake' was made with malice.

    This might tip the balance against B taking a civil case against A as proving malice could be a fairly high hurdle.

    In the scenario posited by the OP, man B has "material evidence" that proves A was lying.


  • #9
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    IsaacWunder wrote: »
    In the scenario posited by the OP, man B has "material evidence" that proves A was lying.

    It's not a simple case of lying, the plaintiff must establish malice in the narrow sense, namely spite or ill will, or in the wider sense of using an occasion of qualified privilege for an indirect or improper motive, simply showing it was a lie is not in itself enough.


  • #10
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,636 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    IsaacWunder wrote: »
    In the scenario posited by the OP, man B has "material evidence" that proves A was lyingmistaken.
    FTFY

    The material evidence may disprove what A has reported but there may be a significant difference between this and proving beyond reasonable doubt (or even on the balance of probabilities) that A was lying rather than having made an 'honest mistake'. Proving malice may be more difficult yet again.


  • #11
    IsaacWunder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 398 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    GM228 wrote: »
    It's not a simple case of lying, the plaintiff must establish malice in the narrow sense, namely spite or ill will, or in the wider sense of using an occasion of qualified privilege for an indirect or improper motive, simply showing it was a lie is not in itself enough.

    In the scenario, "man A lies to Gardai in an effort to get Man B prosecuted for a crime".


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,998 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    IsaacWunder wrote: »
    In the scenario, "man A lies to Gardai in an effort to get Man B prosecuted for a crime".
    Yes. But succeeding in a defamation action requires a bit more; it requires "man A proven to have lied to Gardai in an effort to get man B prosecuted for a crime." This isn't established simply by proving that what man A said to the guards was incorrect or untrue.


  • #13
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,696 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Is there no legal obligation on the Gardaí or DPP to investigate the false statement. They can simply arrest you on the back of a false statement.
    Can you pursue the state for damages due to negligence of duty or something similar.


  • #14
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Is there no legal obligation on the Gardaí or DPP to investigate the false statement. They can simply arrest you on the back of a false statement.
    Can you pursue the state for damages due to negligence of duty or something similar.

    We have discussed both topics in great detail, in short the answer to both is no.


  • #15
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,998 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Is there no legal obligation on the Gardaí or DPP to investigate the false statement. They can simply arrest you on the back of a false statement.
    Arresting you may be part of how they investigate the statement that has been made to them.


  • #16
    chunkylover4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 243 ✭✭chunkylover4


    potential Defamation claim, make sure you are within the statute and go to a solicitor.


  • #17
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,696 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Arresting you may be part of how they investigate the statement that has been made to them.

    Surley an investigation should happen before an arrest. If anything it helps person b's defemation case when the Guards fail to investigate and start with an arrest.


  • #18
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,998 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Surley an investigation should happen before an arrest. If anything it helps person b's defemation case when the Guards fail to investigate and start with an arrest.
    The guards generally can't arrest you unless they have a "reasonable suspicion", and the statement(s) made to them by others may be enough to raise a reasonable suspicion. It's then a matter of judgment whether to arrest you and interview you under caution (and the fact that this routinely happens tells you than an investigation does typically continue beyond an arrest) or simply to invite you to engage in a voluntary interview. Either way, there's no rule that they have to be satisfied of your guilt beyond reasonable doubt before they arrest you; that's the test for conviction, not arrest.

    Yes, the fact that you have been arrested may help your defamation case. It proves that the statements made about you were damaging to you, which is one of the things you have to prove to win, and it also tends to increase the level of damages you will be awarded, since being arrested is traumatic.


Advertisement