Statute of limitations on entry property and theft, in Ireland?

bo0li5eumx12kp

Does such a thing exist.

If a sumbitch pinched your goods 10 years ago, will police assist in an investigation, or will be they like, "lolwut"?

Peregrinus

For a minor offence a summons has to be issued within 6 months of the alleged offence. There is no fixed time limit for more serious offences, though a defendant can object if the delay in progressing the matter has prejudices his ability to mount a defence.

If somebody pinched your stuff 10 years ago, the time to ask the guards to investigate was 10 years ago. If you ask now, they will likely tell you to get lost, not so much because a charge may be statute-barred as because your delay in reporting the matter has made a successful investigation much more difficult and much less likely to result in a charge, and they are not going to waste resources on something that, at the time, you didn't consider worth reporting.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Peregrinus wrote: »

For a minor offence a summons has to be issued within 6 months of the alleged offence. There is no fixed time limit for more serious offences, though a defendant can object if the delay in progressing the matter has prejudices his ability to mount a defence.

If somebody pinched your stuff 10 years ago, the time to ask the guards to investigate was 10 years ago. If you ask now, they will likely tell you to get lost, not so much because a charge may be statute-barred as because your delay in reporting the matter has made a successful investigation much more difficult and much less likely to result in a charge, and they are not going to waste resources on something that, at the time, you didn't consider worth reporting.

But, let's just entertain the possibility that a successful investigation was still on the cards and they felt an outcome was possible - being statute-barred would not get in the way of that process at this time?

Or it would?

Let's just postulate for the purposes of analogy also that, it was not a crime I "didn't consider worth reporting" but that, extenuating circumstances at the time, prevented me reporting it then.

But again I've no idea how that would impact "statute of limitations" scenario.

Peregrinus

What offence, exactly, was committed? This matters, becuse we need to know if the offence is affected by the six-month rule.

And, what's the scale of the offence? There's a range of offences that are triable either way - that is to say, minor cases of e.g. theft will be tried summarily in the District Court, while more serious cases will be tried on indictment before a jury in the Circuit Court or the Central Criminal Court. So, you stole a 50-euro note that someone dropped in the street, you're headed for the District Court and a summary trial; you stole a fifty-thousand euro stash of jewels, you will be tried on indictment.

If the offence was 10 years ago, it is now too late to try it summarily. In theory it could be tried on indictment, but it would normally be regarded as oppressive to try a minor case on indictment purely to get around the 6-month limitation period. Plus, it costs a lot more to run a trial on indictment; they wouldn't be inclined to devote that kind of resources to a minor matter that is 10 years old.

So the bottom line is, if this is a minor matter that, if reported at the time, would have been investigated/prosecuted as a minor offence, they will not not now prosecute. And, if they are not going to prosecute, why investigate? So they won't investigate.

If it's a more serious matter they may investigate, but investigating old offences will consume a lot of time and resources and the prospects of a successful prosecution are lower than if the investigation were done at the time. So they will think carefully about whether this is the best use of resources. The fact that there were Good Reasons why you didn't report it at the time isn't all that relevant; they won't be so much focussed on the reasons for not reporting it as the additional costs and difficulties that the late report puts in the way of investigation/prosecution.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

What offence, exactly, was committed? This matters, becuse we need to know if the offence is affected by the six-month rule.

And, what's the scale of the offence? There's a range of offences that are triable either way - that is to say, minor cases of e.g. theft will be tried summarily in the District Court, while more serious cases will be tried on indictment before a jury in the Circuit Court or the Central Criminal Court. So, you stole a 50-euro note that someone dropped in the street, you're headed for the District Court and a summary trial; you stole a fifty-thousand euro stash of jewels, you will be tried on indictment.

If the offence was 10 years ago, it is now too late to try it summarily. In theory it could be tried on indictment, but it would normally be regarded as oppressive to try a minor case on indictment purely to get around the 6-month limitation period. Plus, it costs a lot more to run a trial on indictment; they wouldn't be inclined to devote that kind of resources to a minor matter that is 10 years old.

So the bottom line is, if this is a minor matter that, if reported at the time, would have been investigated/prosecuted as a minor offence, they will not not now prosecute. And, if they are not going to prosecute, why investigate? So they won't investigate.

If it's a more serious matter they may investigate, but investigating old offences will consume a lot of time and resources and the prospects of a successful prosecution are lower than if the investigation were done at the time. So they will think carefully about whether this is the best use of resources. The fact that there were Good Reasons why you didn't report it at the time isn't all that relevant; they won't be so much focussed on the reasons for not reporting it as the additional costs and difficulties that the late report puts in the way of investigation/prosecution.

A theft offence is an indictable offence which may be tried summarily. It doesn't lose its character as an indictable offence by reason of the mode of trial being summary. In theory, a summons could issue for a 10 year old theft offence and it could be tried summarily. Since 2006-2007, if there is any kind of an indictable trial possible the 6 month limit does not apply.
Only fully summary offences such as minor public order and dink driving can avail of the 6 month limit. Some other fully summary offences have a longer limit but everything else is unlimited.

bo0li5eumx12kp

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A theft offence is an indictable offence which may be tried summarily. It doesn't lose its character as an indictable offence by reason of the mode of trial being summary. In theory, a summons could issue for a 10 year old theft offence and it could be tried summarily. Since 2006-2007, if there is any kind of an indictable trial possible the 6 month limit does not apply.
Only fully summary offences such as minor public order and dink driving can avail of the 6 month limit. Some other fully summary offences have a longer limit but everything else is unlimited.

I'll interpret that as optimistic vs above posters, less optimistic.

Crime was entering a property not theirs and lifting valuables to the tune of about 500 euro.

Under which category that would fall I don't know but this quote suggests that regardless, it may be still worth my while reporting.

In terms of investigation, this wasn't exactly a professional endeavour.
More I think what's known as, "opportunistic".
I have no idea what a police investigation is comprised of but would involve mostly in this case, making some calls, knocking on some doors and police time - not FBI profile level but naturally some man hours I'd imagine, none the less.

bo0li5eumx12kp

I asked a couple dudes about this and the response went to the effect of, "yeah, go into a chop shop..... I mean cop shop and report 500 euro theft of valuables.... from 10 years ago, and prepared to get laughed into the pavement".

I mean I gotta be honest.

Getting Irish cops to act on something that happened in the last hour, hell - might be happening right at that very moment, is difficult enough.

In realistic terms, is this just a lost cause?

Mod
Pls moderate your offensive remarks about AGS

Peregrinus

There would need to be a compelling reason why the offence was not reported when it occurred. It's not just that there are considerable practical difficulties in the way of investigating an offence that occurred 10 years ago but also that, if there were to be a prosecution, the defence would argue strongly that it is unfair and oppressive to prosecute so long after the event, when the lapse of time will have made it much more difficult to mount a defence - memories having faded, witnesses being hard to trace, alibis being much more difficult to establish, etc. Those are pretty powerful objections, and unless there is an answer to them a prosecution is unlikely to succeed, and if a prosecution is unlikely to succeed that's another reason why the guards are not going to be keen to waste time and resources mounting an investigation.

The information missing in this thread is what circumstance prevented the matter from being reported and investigated at the time. The OP obviously doesn't want to go into that, which is fine, but it does mean that we can't give him a very clear answer to the question he wants an answer to.