Disclosure of evidence to solicitor prior to interview

Balcurris

Apologies if questions like this are not allowed.

I would just like to know what the story is with Gardai disclosing evidence to a solicitor prior to a suspect being interviewed.

Are the gardai obliged to disclose all evidence or just part of it?

Are they obliged to disclose any evidence at all?

And finally, would gardai not mention certain evidence in the interview that they intend to use at a trial.

Thanks in advance.

coylemj

Balcurris wrote: »

Are the gardai obliged to disclose all evidence or just part of it?

Are they obliged to disclose any evidence at all?

They're under no obligation to disclose any evidence to a suspect or his solicitor until a person is indicted and served with the book of evidence.

Balcurris

Thank you.

jarvis

coylemj wrote: »

They're under no obligation to disclose any evidence to a suspect or his solicitor until a person is indicted and served with the book of evidence.

Surely though if they intend to use something in evidence they’re more likely to question a person on it at interview stage?

coylemj

jarvis wrote: »

Surely though if they intend to use something in evidence they’re more likely to question a person on it at interview stage?

They may, or they may not. I'm sure you've watched enough crime drama on TV and in the movies to know how police interview suspects.

The OP asked if they're obliged to disclose the known evidence when questioning a suspect. The answer is that they are not.

Claw Hammer

There is no obligation to disclose evidence at the interview stage. The purpose of the interview is to gather evidence or validate evidence already obtained. What in fact would happen is that the guards would conceal what they know or are sure of if possible and ask questions designed to test out that evidence.
If they knew or strongly suspected you were in a particular place at a particular time, they might ask where you were at certain times. If you tell a lie, it could be damaging for you later on. The guards won't be telling you why they are asking questions or what they know or suspect at any time.

coylemj

USA:

It’s Time for Police to Stop Lying to Suspects

Innocent people are in jail because detectives tricked them.

Most Americans don’t know this, but police officers in the United States are permitted by law to outright lie about evidence to suspects they interrogate in pursuit of a confession. Of all forms of subterfuge they deploy — like feigning sympathy and suggesting that a suspect’s confession might bring leniency — this one is particularly dangerous.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/opinion/false-confessions-police-interrogation.html

Balcurris

I'd be shocked if the same trickery doesn't happen here aswell.

phildub

Balcurris wrote: »

Apologies if questions like this are not allowed.

I would just like to know what the story is with Gardai disclosing evidence to a solicitor prior to a suspect being interviewed.

Are the gardai obliged to disclose all evidence or just part of it?

Are they obliged to disclose any evidence at all?

And finally, would gardai not mention certain evidence in the interview that they intend to use at a trial.

Thanks in advance.

They don't have to disclose evidence, they may ask you about evidence in an interview, like why was this on your person or have you ever seen this knife before but they don't have to. It takes months for the state to fully disclose everything to the defence and who knows half the time if they disclose everything (obviously they have to disclose everything they are going to use at trial)

Balcurris

Would it be normal if there is CCTV evidence that it would be presented in an interview. Especially if it's a crucial part of the evidence.

phildub

Balcurris wrote: »

Would it be normal if there is CCTV evidence that it would be presented in an interview. Especially if it's a crucial part of the evidence.

Ya its normal that they would show the cctv in interview, especially where it helps the case. They will show the accused the footage and say is that you etc. The cctv footage may not be available during the interview or they may not show it if it is inconclusive

Just think of the Graham Dwyer interview process- he answered all sorts of apparently innocuous questions like did you attend a model plane meet up, or where were you on x date- the whole point of the questions was to link him to a burner phone that he had purchased to communicate with his victim and subsequently threw away - he didn’t know the gardai had since found that phone- he essentially gave the jury enough evidence to convict him as he didn’t understand the line of questioning and thought it was totally benign

Claw Hammer

Balcurris wrote: »

Would it be normal if there is CCTV evidence that it would be presented in an interview. Especially if it's a crucial part of the evidence.

The CCTV evidence would be disclosed in the book of evidence. It is unlikely to be shown at interview but it would depend on what direction the investigation was heading.

phildub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The CCTV evidence would be disclosed in the book of evidence. It is unlikely to be shown at interview but it would depend on what direction the investigation was heading.

This is not exactly true, cctv can be disclosed prior to the case being sent forward (ie service of book of evidence) and ive seen many cases where the cctv was shown to the client in the interview. If they have it and it clearly shows the person they arrested committing a crime they are going to show it to get a confession.

meathstevie

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just think of the Graham Dwyer interview process- he answered all sorts of apparently innocuous questions like did you attend a model plane meet up, or where were you on x date- the whole point of the questions was to link him to a burner phone that he had purchased to communicate with his victim and subsequently threw away - he didn’t know the gardai had since found that phone- he essentially gave the jury enough evidence to convict him as he didn’t understand the line of questioning and thought it was totally benign

You can’t blame the Gardai or Police for the stupidity, arrogance or naivity of a suspect. On the contrary, it’s part of the art of interviewing to exploit characteristics like that, nothing illegal about it.

meathstevie

meathstevie wrote: »

You can’t blame the Gardai or Police for the stupidity, arrogance or nativity of a suspect. On the contrary, it’s part of the art of interviewing to exploit characteristics like that, nothing illegal about it.

Eh I never said it was- I was replying to the original OP nothing else- you’ve the wrong end of the stick :rolleyes:

Claw Hammer

phildub wrote: »

This is not exactly true, cctv can be disclosed prior to the case being sent forward (ie service of book of evidence) and ive seen many cases where the cctv was shown to the client in the interview. If they have it and it clearly shows the person they arrested committing a crime they are going to show it to get a confession.

It may be done after the suspect has made a statement in order to get a reaction.
Tactically it would mean that the suspect won't have time to make up lies to explain away the footage, which he might do if he had the CCTV for a lengthy period before trial. It would be entirely up to the investigators to decide to show it or not.

phildub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It may be done after the suspect has made a statement in order to get a reaction.
Tactically it would mean that the suspect won't have time to make up lies to explain away the footage, which he might do if he had the CCTV for a lengthy period before trial. It would be entirely up to the investigators to decide to show it or not.

There might never be a trail of it is summary disposal, cctv is provided quite early in a case, accused us innocent until proven guilty, gardai cant withhold evidence incase the accused tries to explain his movements. On numerous occasions our clients have been shown cctv during their first interview with solicitor present.

Claw Hammer

phildub wrote: »

There might never be a trail of it is summary disposal, cctv is provided quite early in a case, accused us innocent until proven guilty, gardai cant withhold evidence incase the accused tries to explain his movements. On numerous occasions our clients have been shown cctv during their first interview with solicitor present.

The guards only have to disclose prior to trial in enough time for the accused and his legal advisers to examine the evidence. Whether it is summary disposal or on indictment the principles are the same. the accused might plead before a hearing.
If the guards think they can get an admission at an early stage they might show footage but they are unlikely to do so, or allow a solicitor to be present if it would work against them.

phildub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The guards only have to disclose prior to trial in enough time for the accused and his legal advisers to examine the evidence. Whether it is summary disposal or on indictment the principles are the same. the accused might plead before a hearing.
If the guards think they can get an admission at an early stage they might show footage but they are unlikely to do so, or allow a solicitor to be present if it would work against them.

Can I ask where your getting this info? We advise our clients to wait until we receive cctv before pleading, have cases marked peremptory against the state waiting on cctv to be disclosed...

Lenar3556

phildub wrote: »

Can I ask where your getting this info? We advise our clients to wait until we receive cctv before pleading, have cases marked peremptory against the state waiting on cctv to be disclosed...

That’s certainly good advice, but has nothing to do with gardai showing cctv footage to someone during interview, which isn’t typical.

As has been suggested above, it may be tactical in some circumstances, but this is entirely at the discretion of gardai whether they would choose to take such a course.

phildub

Lenar3556 wrote: »

That’s certainly good advice, but has nothing to do with gardai showing cctv footage to someone during interview, which isn’t typical.

As has been suggested above, it may be tactical in some circumstances, but this is entirely at the discretion of gardai whether they would choose to take such a course.

In my experience, which I admit is limited, I would say it is typical for a garda to show cctv during the interview, I suppose we have different experiences!

Claw Hammer

phildub wrote: »

Can I ask where your getting this info? We advise our clients to wait until we receive cctv before pleading, have cases marked peremptory against the state waiting on cctv to be disclosed...

Naturally you wait for cctv before pleading but whether the guards show it before that is up to them. If you have had cases marked peremptory, it clearly means you were not shown the cctv before that, and were interviewed before that as well.

phildub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Naturally you wait for cctv before pleading but whether the guards show it before that is up to them. If you have had cases marked peremptory, it clearly means you were not shown the cctv before that, and were interviewed before that as well.

No, they could have shown the cctv at interview but not provided it to us by way of disclosure. I dont know where you're getting your information from but your experience of the criminal justice system is very different to mine. On occasions where the cctv is not available during interview I will conceed that it would not be shown but I find it irregular that this would be common practice, just my own observations from my own personal experience, yours may be different

Claw Hammer

phildub wrote: »

No, they could have shown the cctv at interview but not provided it to us by way of disclosure. I dont know where you're getting your information from but your experience of the criminal justice system is very different to mine. On occasions where the cctv is not available during interview I will conceed that it would not be shown but I find it irregular that this would be common practice, just my own observations from my own personal experience, yours may be different

This doesn't add up. You have been shown the cctv but won't plead until you get a copy?

phildub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

This doesn't add up. You have been shown the cctv but won't plead until you get a copy?

Yes, it does make sense but im not go through all of this with you especially when you won't tell me where you are getting any of your information from. These are my experiences I am not lying

Claw Hammer

The only reason for doing it as you are saying is to maximise the legal aid fees for your firm. In reality you know the case against you, you know what evidence the guards have and whilst there is a small chance of a strike out the only effect of holding out for the CCTV is to maximise fees.
There is no obligation on the guards to show the CCTV until there is a disclosure order made. They may do so for tactical reasons. They are obliged to deliver it in disclosure and if they don't make disclosure the case can be struck out.
The guards want to do two things. Get convictions and avoid trials. If showing the CCTV at interview helps towards that they will show it. If not, they won't.

phildub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The only reason for doing it as you are saying is to maximise the legal aid fees for your firm. In reality you know the case against you, you know what evidence the guards have and whilst there is a small chance of a strike out the only effect of holding out for the CCTV is to maximise fees.
There is no obligation on the guards to show the CCTV until there is a disclosure order made. They may do so for tactical reasons. They are obliged to deliver it in disclosure and if they don't make disclosure the case can be struck out.
The guards want to do two things. Get convictions and avoid trials. If showing the CCTV at interview helps towards that they will show it. If not, they won't.

You have no idea what you're talking about, there are numerous reasons for asking for the cctv, and yes stirke out is one of them, the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence and is entitled to the evidence the state have against them, these are fundamental principles of the criminal justice system protected under the constitution. If we request CCTV first day in and we are provided with it before the day of making the plea which is usually the case, no extra fees for us involved as we would have been in those two days anyway. You have refused to say where you are getting your information so I'd advise you to turn off the TV and open a book

In answer to OPs question no, they don't have to tell you the disclosure they have on you at the interview, in answer to the subsequent question regarding showing of cctv during interview, it is my experience that this would be typical but not always the case. I'm not going to engage anymore in a debate as these are my experiences

Claw Hammer

phildub wrote: »

If we request CCTV first day in and we are provided with it before the day of making the plea which is usually the case, no extra fees for us involved as we would have been in those two days anyway.

Exactly and if you don't get it that day, you apply for a strike out and the matter is adjourned again making more money for you.
there is a presumption of innocence but when you client is caught bang to rights there is an ethical obligation to help your client get the minimum sentence.
Credit is always given for a early guilty plea, so the more you drag things out the lesser the credit.

phildub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Exactly and if you don't get it that day, you apply for a strike out and the matter is adjourned again making more money for you.
there is a presumption of innocence but when you client is caught bang to rights there is an ethical obligation to help your client get the minimum sentence.
Credit is always given for a early guilty plea, so the more you drag things out the lesser the credit.

It's clear that you have never stepped foot in a criminal court

hullaballoo

phildub wrote: »

It's clear that you have never stepped foot in a criminal court

There's no need for that.

Two different perspectives on the same situation wouldn't be all that unusual for two lawyers would it? If it was, we wouldn't need courts.

phildub

hullaballoo wrote: »

There's no need for that.

Two different perspectives on the same situation wouldn't be all that unusual for two lawyers would it? If it was, we wouldn't need courts.

It is not a different perspective though what the poster is saying is not true. A strike out is not adjournment, the case is struck out and it can be reentered by the state if they wish but this does not always happen. There is no next date in court for a criminal defense solicitor to make money, they would make more money if it's not struck out but obviously not good for client. poster hasn't said he's a lawyer or where he is getting information from. I am also not a lawyer. I am making an observation that as he is stating things as facts that are not facts that it is clear to me that he does not work in the criminal courts. Also he is talking about an early plea, if cctv is requested then the accused is not prejudiced by taking the time to view said cctv and it does not impact the early plea reduction in any sentence. If an accused pleads not guilty there is no early plea and the poster has not acknowledged this. What the poster is saying is not how the courts work and that is where I drew my conclusion from.

Balcurris

phildub wrote: »

There might never be a trail of it is summary disposal, cctv is provided quite early in a case, accused us innocent until proven guilty, gardai cant withhold evidence incase the accused tries to explain his movements. On numerous occasions our clients have been shown cctv during their first interview with solicitor present.

Leading on from that Phil and I appreciate your knowledge here, if interview with the suspect was 18 months after the alleged offence and gardai claim to have CCTV evidence but never show the suspect in the interview, that kind of does away with the cctv not being available you would think.

The gardai may claim they have CCTV to try get a confession but in fact may not have CCTV at all. Would this be a tactic they would use in your experience?

phildub

Balcurris wrote: »

Leading on from that Phil and I appreciate your knowledge here, if interview with the suspect was 18 months after the alleged offence and gardai claim to have CCTV evidence but never show the suspect in the interview, that kind of does away with the cctv not being available you would think.

The gardai may claim they have CCTV to try get a confession but in fact may not have CCTV at all. Would this be a tactic they would use in your experience?

Oh gosh that's very specific and i don't want to be giving out legal advice. That has not happened in my experience but the garda could say there is cctv and not show it in interview as a tactic, the issue will be when it goes in front of a judge and there is no cctv but it is referenced in the interview. If the garda says they misplaced it, depending on the charge and other evidence the defense could ask for a strike out, if there are eye witness statements the case will more than likely still proceed. If you are asking about someone confessing to something based on being told there is cctv but there actually is not, that is a question for the accusseds solicitor im afraid! I'm not sure of ive answered your question but I hope that helps!

Lenar3556

Balcurris wrote: »

Leading on from that Phil and I appreciate your knowledge here, if interview with the suspect was 18 months after the alleged offence and gardai claim to have CCTV evidence but never show the suspect in the interview, that kind of does away with the cctv not being available you would think.

The gardai may claim they have CCTV to try get a confession but in fact may not have CCTV at all. Would this be a tactic they would use in your experience?

The Garda are under no obligation to show CCTV recordings to a suspect or even refer to their existence until disclosure of evidence is ordered by the court.

Claw Hammer

phildub wrote: »

It is not a different perspective though what the poster is saying is not true. A strike out is not adjournment, the case is struck out and it can be reentered by the state if they wish but this does not always happen. There is no next date in court for a criminal defense solicitor to make money, they would make more money if it's not struck out but obviously not good for client. poster hasn't said he's a lawyer or where he is getting information from. I am also not a lawyer. I am making an observation that as he is stating things as facts that are not facts that it is clear to me that he does not work in the criminal courts. Also he is talking about an early plea, if cctv is requested then the accused is not prejudiced by taking the time to view said cctv and it does not impact the early plea reduction in any sentence. If an accused pleads not guilty there is no early plea and the poster has not acknowledged this. What the poster is saying is not how the courts work and that is where I drew my conclusion from.

I am not talking specifically about how the courts work but how the guards work. If there is a strike out the accused has a chance of getting away with the offence. If it is re-entered he has the same chance as before.
In a mitigation plea there is credit for a guilty ple and much will be made of the fact that it was at an early stage eg earliest possible stage or whether it was on the proposed day of the trial when there was in reality no alternative.

Eire392

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The CCTV evidence would be disclosed in the book of evidence. It is unlikely to be shown at interview but it would depend on what direction the investigation was heading.

This is incorrect. I have never heard of a suspect not having had CCTV being put to them in interview when there is CCTV available. Never

Lenar3556

Eire392 wrote: »

This is incorrect. I have never heard of a suspect not having had CCTV being put to them in interview when there is CCTV available. Never

It depends greatly on the circumstances, there is certainly no obligation on the state to disclose anything of the nature of evidence to an accused up until the point that disclosure is ordered.

At a certain point in the investigation, it would routinely be put to a suspect that CCTV footage of a particular nature existed. This would allow the suspect outline any reasonable defence to what might appear on the CCTV. Actually showing the recording may also occur if this was deemed appropriate, but is neither essential nor particularly common. There can sometimes be technical difficulties in arranging viewing and in many cases it would serve little or no probative value, and rather would further the suspects ability to concoct in early course, an alternative series of events to match what was seen on a tape.

Eire392

Lenar3556 wrote: »

It depends greatly on the circumstances, there is certainly no obligation on the state to disclose anything of the nature of evidence to an accused up until the point that disclosure is ordered.

At a certain point in the investigation, it would routinely be put to a suspect that CCTV footage of a particular nature existed. This would allow the suspect outline any reasonable defence to what might appear on the CCTV. Actually showing the recording may also occur if this was deemed appropriate, but is neither essential nor particularly common. There can sometimes be technical difficulties in arranging viewing and in many cases it would serve little or no probative value, and rather would further the suspects ability to concoct in early course, an alternative series of events to match what was seen on a tape.

What experience are you speaking from? Because to say that showing a suspect CCTV is uncommon is absolutely and uncategorically wrong.

Balcurris

Let me add a little bit to this lads and I thank you for all your replies so far, I am not looking for advice I am just curious as it was an allegation against a friend of mine.

He could be placed at the scene of an alleged criminal damage through fingerprints on a moveable object, that was put to him in interview. No other evidence was put to him at interview, just the "we have cctv" comment.

Suspect made no admissions at interview and did not account for his movements, rather could not as it was almost two years previous the alleged crime took place.

Having said all that, would fingerprints on a moveable object be enough to bring about a charge? Especially if no other evidence exists.

Does this further information i have provided you with make it more or less likely the cctv was available and was just not presented at interview

Lenar3556

Hard to say without knowing the facts. He could ask that the CCTV be shown to him so as to help his recollection.

Quite a period of time has elapsed, and likely the ship has sailed for summary disposal. If this is the case, it is probable that the DPP would need to be consulted and direct trial on indictment. In practice the matter involved would need to be on the more serious end of criminal damage to warrant this. >€7k value or other atypical indicators.

Your friend should take legal advice.

phildub

Balcurris wrote: »

Let me add a little bit to this lads and I thank you for all your replies so far, I am not looking for advice I am just curious as it was an allegation against a friend of mine.

He could be placed at the scene of an alleged criminal damage through fingerprints on a moveable object, that was put to him in interview. No other evidence was put to him at interview, just the "we have cctv" comment.

Suspect made no admissions at interview and did not account for his movements, rather could not as it was almost two years previous the alleged crime took place.

Having said all that, would fingerprints on a moveable object be enough to bring about a charge? Especially if no other evidence exists.

Does this further information i have provided you with make it more or less likely the cctv was available and was just not presented at interview

If I had to guess I would say if there is cctv then it isn't very useful to their investigation. If it showed you friend commiting a crime they would want to show it to him so that they could get some kind of admission from him. Cctb might show ur friend in the area or might show the incident but not a good look at the person committing the crime. In this case garda might decide not to show at interview as then your friend would know they don't have him on cctv. Has he been arrested and not charged? How did he come to speak to garda? If this movable object was suspected as being used as part of a crime then yes that is enough to charge him. If your friend has a valid explanation as to why his finger prints are on the object then that weakens the case but that will be for the jury to determine. If your friend has not been charged tell him to never speak to the garda again unless he is arrested and then so after consulting with his solicitor. If you speak to the garda without being arrested they can talk to you for hours and the clock hasn't started. Once you are arrested they have certain time frames depending on the crime, when u have to be put on front of a judge. The minute ur friend is in front of a judge his solicitor asks for cctv the court presenter or the investigating garda will then inform the court if there is cctv available

Why was he interviewed two years after the alleged incident?
CCTV is the type of evidence that is collected very soon after an incident, as it usually is retained for a short time.

Balcurris

phildub wrote: »

If I had to guess I would say if there is cctv then it isn't very useful to their investigation. If it showed you friend commiting a crime they would want to show it to him so that they could get some kind of admission from him. Cctb might show ur friend in the area or might show the incident but not a good look at the person committing the crime. In this case garda might decide not to show at interview as then your friend would know they don't have him on cctv. Has he been arrested and not charged? How did he come to speak to garda? If this movable object was suspected as being used as part of a crime then yes that is enough to charge him. If your friend has a valid explanation as to why his finger prints are on the object then that weakens the case but that will be for the jury to determine. If your friend has not been charged tell him to never speak to the garda again unless he is arrested and then so after consulting with his solicitor. If you speak to the garda without being arrested they can talk to you for hours and the clock hasn't started. Once you are arrested they have certain time frames depending on the crime, when u have to be put on front of a judge. The minute ur friend is in front of a judge his solicitor asks for cctv the court presenter or the investigating garda will then inform the court if there is cctv available

He was arrested and charged 20 months after the alleged incident. The only evidence presented in interview was fingerprints on an item suspected of being used in the criminal damage. The total damage is in the lower end <1k

Balcurris

bubblypop wrote: »

Why was he interviewed two years after the alleged incident?
CCTV is the type of evidence that is collected very soon after an incident, as it usually is retained for a short time.

Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe it took the lab that long to analyse the item for fingerprints as it wouldn't have been a priority.

phildub

Balcurris wrote: »

Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe it took the lab that long to analyse the item for fingerprints as it wouldn't have been a priority.

So was he ID'd from fingerprints or through cctv?
When was he arrested? Does he have a solicitor?

Claw Hammer

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Quite a period of time has elapsed, and likely the ship has sailed for summary disposal. If this is the case, it is probable that the DPP would need to be consulted and direct trial on indictment.e.

The ship has not sailed for summary disposal. Criminal damage is an either way offence.

Balcurris

Balcurris wrote: »

Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe it took the lab that long to analyse the item for fingerprints as it wouldn't have been a priority.

Ah ok, yes I guess if the prints didn't come back for a while, makes sense. I suppose they may have CCTV that was collected at the time of the offence, would be unusual not to show it in interview

Lenar3556

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The ship has not sailed for summary disposal. Criminal damage is an either way offence.

I was aware of that, but is the summary route still open if no application with 6 months?

Because it is either way the 6 months does not arise whatsoever?

phildub

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I was aware of that, but is the summary route still open if no application with 6 months?

Because it is either way the 6 months does not arise whatsoever?

Criminal damage is not a summary offence, it is an offence which is triable either way which means it is not bound by the 6 month time limit. The 6 month time limit is only for offences which are summary only. However I actually don't know if this means that it can most definitely not be tried in the district court,I must ask my boss on Monday because that is an interesting situation.

Obviously it would be better for the accused to at least have the option to elect summary disposal!

The offence can still be dealt with in the district court. I would imagine, unless there are some other circumstances, that it would be dealt with summarily