Can someone help me understand the difference between civil and criminal offences?

Crock Rock

Am I correct in saying that a criminal offence is one against society or the state and a civil offence is against the person?

Criminal offences require proof beyond reasonable doubt and a unanimous guilty verdict to convict.

Civil offences have a lower burden of proof.

Committing a civil offence will not get you a criminal record.

Examples of a criminal offence: Murder, rape, terrorism, speeding*, dangerous driving (*you avoid a criminal conviction by paying the fine and accepting points).

Examples of a civil offence: Blocking a driveway, stealing someone's property, breaking a window on someone's house.


In terms of rape, seeing as this is a criminal offence. If a person reports being raped and they decide they don't want the defendant prosecuted, does that mean the defendant will be tried anyway (even if the complainant decides not to pursue) because criminal offences are against the state and the person who was raped is a witness to this and must proceed with the report?

What about littering? That's hardly a criminal offence. Are all offences black and white? Either criminal or civil?

What does indictment mean? Does indictment mean a crime not subject to the statue of limitations? IE, murder and rape?

Sorry for all of the questions in one thread.

GM228

See here:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057860365

And here:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057800993

All your queries are answered in those two threads.

All your examples of civil offences (and littering) are actually criminal offences, we don't have civil offences, but we do have civil law as I and others detailed in the those threads:-

GM228 wrote: »

Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. As such they are generally taken by the state via the DPP (or by AGS in the name of the DPP) for the majority of crimes, but they can also be taken by organisations such as Revenue, Irish Rail, An Post etc, but as I said previously criminal cases can be initiated by any one. Crimes are both indictable and summary.

Basically criminal law punishes for crimes against the state (which are proscribed by statute or common law), whilst civil law looks for redress for wrongs to a person (natural or legal), in other words it protects people from each others wrongs.

Also note that criminal law and civil law are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a person to be prosecuted for criminal conduct and then face civil action for the same conduct. Because the standard of proof is higher in criminal law than civil law, it is not unknown for civil actions to succeed, even if the accused was acquitted in a criminal trial.

The state by the way can also be a private party in a civil case.

GM228 wrote: »

Indictment is trial by jury, as opposed to summary trials which is a trial by judge only.

To note is some indictable offences can be tried summarily.

**Have a look at this thread.

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057776808/1/#post104417404

**The post linked in my quote above also deals with your statute of limitations query.


Many offences, or rather much of the law in general is pretty black and white, however many provisions are not always so black and white and often spark great legal debate which often requires the court to clarify certain matters.

With regards a guilty verdict by a jury, it does not need to be unanimous, a majority of 10 (based on a minimum 11 jurors) can convict once deliberations have taken a reasonable time of at least 2 hours.

Crock Rock

Thanks everyone. A good few people know their law here.

What is the deciding factor or who decides if a person is tried on summary trial in the district court or indictment by jury?

For example, I drive through a town on drink and drugs at 200 km/h and I'm stopped by the Gardaí, I'll most likely appear in Swords District Court or Balbriggan.

However, if I killed or injured a person in the process, I'd be indicted on front of a jury.

What exactly are the deciding factors whether a person is indicted or just goes on summary trial?

Can someone give me examples of trials that are heard in each court?

Can a precedent only be set in a jury trial?

mr_fegelien

What about theft from a person? That would definitely be prosecuted under the TFA act which is a criminal offense not a civil one but what if it's a theft from a family member? That's not a crime against society.

GM228

Crock Rock wrote: »

What is the deciding factor or who decides if a person is tried on summary trial in the district court or indictment by jury?

For example, I drive through a town on drink and drugs at 200 km/h and I'm stopped by the Gardaí, I'll most likely appear in Swords District Court or Balbriggan.

However, if I killed or injured a person in the process, I'd be indicted on front of a jury.

What exactly are the deciding factors whether a person is indicted or just goes on summary trial?

Can someone give me examples of trials that are heard in each court?

Can a precedent only be set in a jury trial?

How an offence is prosecuted is decided per statute which prescribes how each offence is prosecuted. Some offences can be tried by either method with higher penalties on indictment, the prosecutor decides in such a cases based on the severity of the crime, the evidence available, the likelihood of a conviction, weather an indictment would be unwarranted etc.

Also to note some indictable offences can be tried summarily (with the permission of the DPP), again where such can occur is prescribed by statute.

mr_fegelien wrote: »

What about theft from a person? That would definitely be prosecuted under the TFA act which is a criminal offense not a civil one but what if it's a theft from a family member? That's not a crime against society.

Theft is theft, it does not matter who the victim is.

A crime is an offence as proscribed by statute or common law, it can be against the person, the state or society as a whole, there is no universal definition.

Crock Rock

Since when are serious crimes tried summarily?
Here we have a case of sexual abuse in a District court.
I though the DC could only hand out a maximum jail term or fine?
Also, aren't sex abuse cases normally held in camera? The district courts are open for all to see.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2019/1112/1090421-kerry/

Samuel T. Cogley

Crock Rock wrote: »

Since when are serious crimes tried summarily?
Here we have a case of sexual abuse in a District court.
I though the DC could only hand out a maximum jail term or fine?
Also, aren't sex abuse cases normally held in camera? The district courts are open for all to see.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2019/1112/1090421-kerry/

I think all cases start in the DC but I'm sure GM228 will be along shortly.

Crock Rock

Nuac, hullaballoo and GM228 are fountains of legal knowledge.

Are they solicitors / barristers?

Samuel T. Cogley

Crock Rock wrote: »

Nuac and GM228 are fountains of legal knowledge.

Are they solicitors / barristers?

Although I may or may not know the answer to that given my time here I'm no snitch. :pac:

hullaballoo

Your list of fountains of legal knowledge is conspicuous in its omissions.

Crock Rock

hullaballoo wrote: »

Your list of fountains of legal knowledge is conspicuous in its omissions.

Apologies !! Edited :P

GM228

Crock Rock wrote: »

Since when are serious crimes tried summarily?
Here we have a case of sexual abuse in a District court.
I though the DC could only hand out a maximum jail term or fine?
Also, aren't sex abuse cases normally held in camera? The district courts are open for all to see.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2019/1112/1090421-kerry/

Certain indictable offences can be tried summarily since 1924, however as STC stated cases will start before the DC before being sent forward to trial, a person can also at this stage plead guilty to certain indictable offences at this stage.

The requirement to hold a case in public is subject to any requirement to hold in camera. The DC can exclude the pubic where statute provides for such or the court deems it necessary for certain offences.

Marcusm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Your list of fountains of legal knowledge is conspicuous in its omissions.

You would prefer to be regarded as a font (source, store or receptacle) of knowledge than being a fountain which merely sprays it willy-nilly.