How does a court case work?

4ensic15 · 20-09-2015 07:37PM

...And Justice wrote: »

It was section 53, the most serious, but he wanted to go ahead, and was made a fool of, in front of at least 20 guardai at the back if the court, how does this stuff happen? When the evidence is clear cut?

You have just said he didn't see your evidence until the day of the case. The decision to prosecute had been made. He will write up a report to the Super on why the prosecution failed and that should ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again. Guards have thick skins and will live it down.

Little CuChulainn · 20-09-2015 10:38PM

...And Justice wrote: »

It was section 53, the most serious, but he wanted to go ahead, and was made a fool of, in front of at least 20 guardai at the back if the court, how does this stuff happen? When the evidence is clear cut?

If he had withdrawn the summons without a direction from the Superintendent he would have left himself open to disciplinary action.

...And Justice · 21-09-2015 01:31PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If he had withdrawn the summons without a direction from the Superintendent he would have left himself open to disciplinary action.

Didn't know that. I know this May be a silly question, but could he have not just rang the super and explain the situation. He had the guts of an hour to do so. I'm just curious?, it would seem like the logical thing to do!? It was a total waste of court time IMO.

Fred Swanson · 21-09-2015 01:41PM

This post has been deleted.

Little CuChulainn · 21-09-2015 04:17PM

...And Justice wrote: »

Didn't know that. I know this May be a silly question, but could he have not just rang the super and explain the situation. He had the guts of an hour to do so. I'm just curious?, it would seem like the logical thing to do!? It was a total waste of court time IMO.

Very rare a drink driving case would be withdrawn either way. They'd be afraid of it looking like a favour was been done.

...And Justice · 21-09-2015 06:53PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Very rare a drink driving case would be withdrawn either way. They'd be afraid of it looking like a favour was been done.

Just to be clear, is was section 53, 53.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

Not drink driving. My relative was leaving work when it happened.

Another thing I noticed was 8 Guards with 1 person, all giving different charges for this 1 person. It seemed like a total waste of resources to me, I can only imagine how much of Garda time is wasted showing up to court for that kind of rubbish, could the DPP just put all the charges together for one guy and the state solicitor sort it there and then? Instead of wasting Garda time?

Little CuChulainn · 21-09-2015 07:00PM

...And Justice wrote: »

Just to be clear, is was section 53, 53.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

Not drink driving. My relative was leaving work when it happened.

Another thing I noticed was 8 Guards with 1 person, all giving different charges for this 1 person. It seemed like a total waste of resources to me, I can only imagine how much of Garda time is wasted showing up to court for that kind of rubbish, could the DPP just put all the charges together for one guy and the state solicitor sort it there and then? Instead of wasting Garda time?

My mistake. They are still slow to withdraw anything that they've given a direction on for similar reasons.

As to the issue of Garda manpower, I presume this was the Bridewell courts or somewhere similar where there is no court presenter. In many courts a Garda sergeant does the prosecution on the part of the Garda to avoid the issue of so many Gardaí in courts. This hasn't extended to summons cases yet though. It will eventually.

...And Justice · 21-09-2015 07:08PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

My mistake. They are still slow to withdraw anything that they've given a direction on for similar reasons.

As to the issue of Garda manpower, I presume this was the Bridewell courts or somewhere similar where there is no court presenter. In many courts a Garda sergeant does the prosecution on the part of the Garda to avoid the issue of so many Gardaí in courts. This hasn't extended to summons cases yet though. It will eventually.

This was the CCJ in Dublin.

Little CuChulainn · 21-09-2015 07:12PM

...And Justice wrote: »

This was the CCJ in Dublin.

Some of the courts there don't have court presenters either.

...And Justice · 21-09-2015 07:23PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Some of the courts there don't have court presenters either.

To sum it up, what I saw in the Irish court system was a joke, a man that was accused of section 53 (1). with no proper evidence, proof of liability of the prosecution witness, who could not be charged because it was over 15 months. Even though it was proved he was at fault. The Garda's evidence was so bloody flimsy it was hilarious, Judge 'O Donnell just let the pit pull (defense Barrister out of the cage) and destruction happened. Mad stuff really.

Anyway end of that. Good to see different legal aspects here

...And Justice · 21-09-2015 07:24PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Some of the courts there don't have court presenters either.

To sum it up, what I saw in the Irish court system was a joke, a man that was accused of section 53 (1). with no proper evidence, proof of liability of the prosecution witness, who could not be charged because it was over 15 months. He caused the accident. Even though it was proved he was at fault. The Garda's evidence was so bloody flimsy it was hilarious, Judge 'O Donnell just let the pit pull (defense Barrister out of the cage) and destruction happened. Mad stuff really.

Anyway end of that. Good to see different legal aspects here

Little CuChulainn · 21-09-2015 07:26PM

...And Justice wrote: »

To sum it up, what I saw in the Irish court system was a joke, a man that was accused of section 53 (1). with no proper evidence, proof of liability of the prosecution witness, who could not be charged because it was over 15 months. Even though it was proved he was at fault. The Garda's evidence was so bloody flimsy it was hilarious, Judge 'O Donnell just let the pit pull (defense Barrister out of the cage) and destruction happened. Mad stuff really.

Anyway end of that. Good to see different legal aspects here

There should be a court presenter and chief state solicitor in every district court, including summons courts. It would save manpower, court time and ensure more professional cases. As it stands you often have Gardaí, who have received only a few hours practical training in court prosecutions, prosecuting all manner of cases. It is indeed a joke.

Fred Swanson · 21-09-2015 07:39PM

This post has been deleted.

4ensic15 · 21-09-2015 08:25PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In Dublin the District courts only deal with a limited range of cases. eg Road traffic or family or children or licensing or civil or general non RTA crime and non DPP prosecutions. State solicitors attend in the drink driving court. Court presenters are not considered necessary in the RTA cases.
In the couNtry all types of case are heard in the same court so a court presenter appears for all cases.

Little CuChulainn · 21-09-2015 08:39PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because they hear all the cases together there. It's one of the small ways that country courts are better than Dublin ones. More oversight.

...And Justice · 26-09-2015 05:47PM

4ensic15 wrote: »

In Dublin the District courts only deal with a limited range of cases. eg Road traffic or family or children or licensing or civil or general non RTA crime and non DPP prosecutions. State solicitors attend in the drink driving court. Court presenters are not considered necessary in the RTA cases.
In the couNtry all types of case are heard in the same court so a court presenter appears for all cases.

There was a state solicitor there because there was a DD case there as well. I did observe her talking with my relatives Barrister and going through the "evidence". Can or could she recommend to the Gardaí or Judge that this doesn't go ahead? or what is the function of the state solicitor? Why Couldn't she just say "this is bull, tell the super, this isn't going ahead, go home"

Surely, the state solicitor has some sort of power over this kind of stuff? What is the function of this person?

Little CuChulainn · 26-09-2015 05:48PM

...And Justice wrote: »

There was a state solicitor there because there was a DD case there as well. I did observe her talking with my relatives Barrister and going through the "evidence". Can or could she recommend to the Gardaí or Judge that this doesn't go ahead? or what is the function of the state solicitor? Why Couldn't she just say "this is bull, tell the super, this isn't going ahead, go home"

Surely, the state solicitor has some sort of power over this kind of stuff? What is the function of this person?

To prosecute the case.

...And Justice · 26-09-2015 05:51PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

To prosecute the case.

I'm lost now? which one the DD or my relatives RTA?

Little CuChulainn · 26-09-2015 05:53PM

...And Justice wrote: »

I'm lost now? which one the DD or my relatives RTA?

The function of the chief state solicitor is to prosecute the case.

Fred Swanson · 26-09-2015 05:57PM

This post has been deleted.

...And Justice · 26-09-2015 06:01PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The function of the chief state solicitor is to prosecute the case.

Seriously?, mother of God, she was presented the evidence too and went ahead? I can't get my head around this. Or it's just going through the motions for the state solicitor? I love reading this forum, fascinating stuff goes on.

I'm seriously thinking of studying criminal law myself, although I'm hitting 40. It's a totally different world to engineering, where facts and data are the whole basis of investigating issues and resolving them without making mountains out of molehills.

4ensic15 · 26-09-2015 06:05PM

...And Justice wrote: »

Seriously?, mother of God, she was presented the evidence too and went ahead? I can't get my head around this. Or it's just going through the motions for the state solicitor? I love reading this forum, fascinating stuff goes on.

I'm seriously thinking of studying criminal law myself, although I'm hitting 40. It's a totally different world to engineering, where facts and data are the whole basis of investigating issues and resolving them without making mountains out of molehills.

Withdrawn or lost cases have to be explained. It is easier in some cases to let a case run and just write a report on what happened. Next time a similar case comes up they know what to do.

...And Justice · 26-09-2015 06:11PM

4ensic15 wrote: »

Withdrawn or lost cases have to be explained. It is easier in some cases to let a case run and just write a report on what happened. Next time a similar case comes up they know what to do.

Ok got it, thanks for that. It still seems a bit silly to me though. Who do they explain to? the Judge? would it not be easier to explain to him/her, than writing up a report after?

Sorry for all these questions, the legal world is a bit mad to me

Fred Swanson · 26-09-2015 06:13PM

This post has been deleted.

...And Justice · 26-09-2015 06:14PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thanks Fred.

4ensic15 · 26-09-2015 06:16PM

...And Justice wrote: »

Ok got it, thanks for that. It still seems a bit silly to me though. Who do they explain to? the Judge? would it not be easier to explain to him/her, than writing up a report after?

Sorry for all these questions, the legal world is a bit mad to me

No. The judge makes aruling. They explain to the DPP and the Superintendent. The Superintendent and the DPP want to know how every case goes. In particular, they want to know if any weaknesses have been spotted in their proofs. The DPP issues circulars regularly to guide prosecutors. Sometimes a flaw is found in the legislation. The Superintendents also want to know that guards are doing their jobs. Sometimes cases are thrown out because the guards didn't obtain the best evidence or didn't follow proper procedures during arrest and detention.

johnnyskeleton · 26-09-2015 06:17PM

I'm seriously thinking of studying criminal law myself, although I'm hitting 40. It's a totally different world to engineering, where facts and data are the whole basis of investigating issues and resolving them without making mountains out of molehills.

I'm not sure you fully understand what "facts" are. Just because I say something doesnt mean it is true. The prosecution says one thing and the defence another. The Judge finds the facts and thus a decision is made.

And please don't hold engineering up as some some sort of objective science - engineers disagree as much as lawyers do.

...And Justice · 26-09-2015 06:23PM

4ensic15 wrote: »

No. The judge makes aruling. They explain to the DPP and the Superintendent. The Superintendent and the DPP want to know how every case goes. In particular, they want to know if any weaknesses have been spotted in their proofs. The DPP issues circulars regularly to guide prosecutors. Sometimes a flaw is found in the legislation. The Superintendents also want to know that guards are doing their jobs. Sometimes cases are thrown out because the guards didn't obtain the best evidence or didn't follow proper procedures during arrest and detention.

Ahh!! that explains a lot so, the Judge said that the Garda didn't investigate this case fully before bringing it to the DPP, and it was torn to shreds.

...And Justice · 26-09-2015 06:26PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not sure you fully understand what "facts" are. Just because I say something doesnt mean it is true. The prosecution says one thing and the defence another. The Judge finds the facts and thus a decision is made.

And please don't hold engineering up as some some sort of objective science - engineers disagree as much as lawyers do.

I don't Johnny, it's just a completely different world to what I'm used to. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I have the utmost respect for the legal profession, I'm Just trying to get my head around it

MarkAnthony · 26-09-2015 07:05PM

...And Justice wrote: »

I don't Johnny, it's just a completely different world to what I'm used to. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I have the utmost respect for the legal profession, I'm Just trying to get my head around it

The Common Law system believes the adversarial system to be the best system for arriving at the truth. Personally I agree in criminal cases. That's not to say other legal systems don't use other systems such as the inquisitorial system.

How does a court case work?

Comments