withholding information

QuayBoarder

I thought there was no offence of withholding information in ireland unless the victim was a child or vulnerable or subject to sex assault. But Joseph Puska's wife is charged with withholding information. Ashling Murphy was not a child vulnerable or subject to sex assault. I am curious.

Peregrinus

Criminal Justice Act 2011 s.18.

Calahonda52

123633_14417853-a45d-4e72-a553-2b86d4fd2a55.docx

Time for some CPD😀

What is the purpose of the 2012 Act?  

Since 1998, the Criminal Justice (Offences Against the State) (Amendment) Act has made it an offence for any person to fail to notify the Garda Síochána where the person has information which he or she knows or believes might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of a serious offence. A “serious offence” in the context of the 1998 Act includes murder, manslaughter, abduction or a serious assault causing physical injury to a person. 

The 2012 Act closes a loophole in the existing legislation because it includes sexual offences in the definition of serious offences. Until now there was no offence of failing to report a sexual offence against a child or vulnerable person. This Act creates such an offence. A full list of the serious offences covered by the Act is contained in the schedules to the Act.The piece to which you refer is the 2012 Act

Seth Brundle

Didn't this also close the sealnof the confessional as a means of keeping silent (IIRC as a result of some priests staying quiet on confessions of child abuse)?

QuayBoarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485692#Comment_121485692

OK I didn't realise murder, manslaughter, abduction or a serious assault causing physical injury to a person was included. Thanks for that

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485900#Comment_121485900

I don't recall any case in which it was established that a priest had received a confession of child abuse. Such a thing would be very hard to prove, since the only person who could testify to the confession would be the abuser who made the confession, and he's unlikely to be a co-operative witness. Plus, you'd have to show not just that a confession of child abuse had been made, but that the confession included details that would be of material use in the apprension, prosecution or conviction of the offender — details like the identity of the abused child, the identity of the abuser, the date and location of the abuse. So actually successfully prosecuting this offence in a case of religious confession is, I think, very unlikely.

The legislation wasn't passed because people making confessions and those confessions not getting passed on was a big problem — there was no evidence that it was and, even if it were, the legislation wouldn't really be effective to do much about it. I think it had more of a symbolic significance — a signal to the church that its own views about the seal of the confessional, etc, no longer cut any ice with the state authorities, and the church no longer had the kind of status that would lead the state to align its laws with church practices and church thinking.

Worth noting that the offence is only committed if the accused has failed to pass on the information "without reasonable excuse". Certainly in the past it was a reasonable excuse that the accused was married to the alleged offender; public policy was that husbands and wives couldn't be required to turn one another in, and it's still the case that they can't be compelled to give evidence against one another. So in this case, where the accused is the wife of the alleged offender, we may get to find out if that's a "reasonable excuse".