Garda Caution - What is their legal stance?

seamus

Right, this was prompted by a letter from our local residents' association warning that vehicles "driving recklessly" would be reported to the Gardai.

As best I understand it, unless that driver is spotted by a Garda, or is involved in an accident, then an eyewitness claiming that a person was speeding is more-or-less useless.
That is, I report person X to the Gardai, claiming that they were speeding. The Gardai contact him and caution him. What does this caution actually mean? If he is later in court on some traffic charge, surely this caution can't have any bearing - an eyewitness account cannot possibly be submissible as evidence of speeding?

Wishbone Ash

seamus wrote:

The Gardai contact him and caution him. What does this caution actually mean?

In my experience it means that they have "a word with him" but it has no legal bearing.

PS - re: "driving recklessly". I think that charge was removed years ago. Now it's 'careless' or 'dangerous'. (I'm open to correction on that).

mike65

Cautioning does go down on file I think.

Mike.

cast_iron

seamus wrote:

As best I understand it, unless that driver is spotted by a Garda, or is involved in an accident, then an eyewitness claiming that a person was speeding is more-or-less useless.
That is, I report person X to the Gardai, claiming that they were speeding. The Gardai contact him and caution him. What does this caution actually mean? If he is later in court on some traffic charge, surely this caution can't have any bearing - an eyewitness account cannot possibly be submissible as evidence of speeding?

You've picked a bad example really. You are correct in what you say when talking about speeding - actual proof is needed as to what how fast the car was going.

However, if you picked dangerous/careless driving as an example, then an official statement may well result in a conviction if the Gardai are pushed enough. I know pwesonally of at least one person convicted of dangerous driving purely because a witness saw them doing hand-brake turns whilst driving through a town.

yayamark

seamus wrote:

Right, this was prompted by a letter from our local residents' association warning that vehicles "driving recklessly" would be reported to the Gardai.

As best I understand it, unless that driver is spotted by a Garda, or is involved in an accident, then an eyewitness claiming that a person was speeding is more-or-less useless.
That is, I report person X to the Gardai, claiming that they were speeding. The Gardai contact him and caution him. What does this caution actually mean? If he is later in court on some traffic charge, surely this caution can't have any bearing - an eyewitness account cannot possibly be submissible as evidence of speeding?

IN no way wishing to put down the Op. You are getting mixed up with your cautions.

In a way there are two "cautions"

1. In the instance you are talking about here. A report of dangerous or careless driving. A garda may call to your house to say that a report has been made regarding you driving dangerously or carelessely. The Garda will speak to you about it, tell you that driving like that is unacceptable and if reported again you may be going to court. The Garda has just cautioned you in relation to your driving.

2. The Legal Caution.

"You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you do say will be taken down in writing and maybe given in evidence"

This is what a Garda will say to you when he is investigating something serious that has a good chance wll end up in court.
Evidence given by a garda in court of what you said has to be under caution, otherwise is relativey inadmissable.

Examples would be
1. You are a suspect in an assualt, the Garda calls to your house and ask you what happened. He will (or should ) caution you before you answer.


Hope that explains.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote:

As best I understand it, unless that driver is spotted by a Garda, or is involved in an accident, then an eyewitness claiming that a person was speeding is more-or-less useless.

Some road traffic offences require that the complainant is a garda, for example, failure to produce driving licence. Others, as Cast_Iron points out, can be prosecuted based on the evidence of a private citizen, or could, I suppose, even be prosecuted by a private citizen acting as a common informer.

That is, I report person X to the Gardai, claiming that they were speeding. The Gardai contact him and caution him. What does this caution actually mean?

It usually means that the garda has used his discretion not to prosecute on that occasion (typically when person X is a flirtatous and apologetic hottie).

Our man in Havana

I have been told by Gardai in the past that cautions are not offically recorded anywhere, so that if the same offender is caught again, the first caution cannot be brought into evidence. The garda told me that cautions were a waste of time.

seamus

Thanks for the answers so far. Cleared it up a little

cast_iron wrote:

However, if you picked dangerous/careless driving as an example, then an official statement may well result in a conviction if the Gardai are pushed enough. I know pwesonally of at least one person convicted of dangerous driving purely because a witness saw them doing hand-brake turns whilst driving through a town.

I'd be interested to know the details of such a case. Let's say I had a grudge with someone two streets over. What's to stop me taking this guy's reg, and giving an official statement to Gardai about how he was handbraking around the local town? I have no proof.
I can understand how a prosecution could be secured based on accounts from multiple eyewitnesses, but surely the word of a single person, in the absence of any proof, cannot be used to secure a prosecution?

Our man in Havana

seamus wrote:

Thanks for the answers so far. Cleared it up a little

I'd be interested to know the details of such a case. Let's say I had a grudge with someone two streets over. What's to stop me taking this guy's reg, and giving an official statement to Gardai about how he was handbraking around the local town? I have no proof.
I can understand how a prosecution could be secured based on accounts from multiple eyewitnesses, but surely the word of a single person, in the absence of any proof, cannot be used to secure a prosecution?

You are quite correct. A prosecution would never succeed in those circumstances.

Wishbone Ash

Bond-007 wrote:

I have been told by Gardai in the past that cautions are not offically recorded anywhere, so that if the same offender is caught again, the first caution cannot be brought into evidence. The garda told me that cautions were a waste of time.

While they may not be used in evidence they can be recorded in the PULSE computer system under 'intelligence', particularly in relation to motoring incidents which may not be strong enough to warrant a prosecution.

For example, a Garda may radio control with a PULSE request for a registration check on a vehicle. The controller will give the name of the registered owner and details relating to tax, insurance and any motoring offences. The controller may also read out any 'intel' also listed, e.g. the driver of the car may have been acting suspiciously on a particular date or they may have had several passengers on board, the car may have been searched etc.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote:

Let's say I had a grudge with someone two streets over. What's to stop me taking this guy's reg, and giving an official statement to Gardai about how he was handbraking around the local town?

The first thing to stop you (apart from your conscience) is the garda who takes your statement. He may decide that you are not credible and so will not go ahead with it. Or, he might make enquiries and find out about your grudge. You can always make a complaint as a common informer, but you can have costs awarded against you here.

The second thing is that, if it does get to court, you can be cross examined as to your grudge, your possible history of making false complaints, and the accused has every right to say that they didn't do it and can produce alibi evidence. If you have no other witnesses, and the accused brings his wife in to say that he was in the cinema with her that night (took a taxi, it was half way through the film at the time of the alleged offence), then the chances of conviction are extremely unlikely.

seamus wrote:

I have no proof

You bear the burden of proof, and your story is evidence. Whether it is sufficient to convict is another question, but is a question of fact rather than of law.

To make my point clearer, imagine a situation similar to that posted above, but you are a member of an Garda Síochána. You have a grudge against someone and you falsify a report. Now, the fact that the complaint comes from a garda might make some people (including a judge) believe that it is fair, true and impartial, but really a garda is no more than an ordinary citizen with a few statutory powers. A garda's evidence should (in theory) be no more nor less reliable than any other citizens. If it were more reliable, then we would have a much higher conviction rate and live in a police state. As far as I recall, gardaí used to prosecute in the district court as common informers until one of the garda síochana acts (I think 2005) gave them an official function as prosecutors. So really a garda has no greater power to bring a district court prosecution than someone else (other than offences which specifically refer to a garda or which require a particular piece of garda equipment to provide evidence).

seamus wrote:

I can understand how a prosecution could be secured based on accounts from multiple eyewitnesses, but surely the word of a single person, in the absence of any proof, cannot be used to secure a prosecution?

Proof has a very particular meaning, and it refers to the totality of evidence which can support a finding to a particular standard. For example, believable and uncontradicted oral evidence that person X was in possession of an amount of heroin can amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt that person X is guilty of an offence under s3 of the MDA 1977. But a particular piece of evidence (such as a statement, a document, or an object) would not usually be considered proof unless there is a statutory presumption or until the court finds that a particular fact has been proved. So the evidence of one person can amount to proof of a particular fact.

Since 1990, the word of a single person, in the absence of any [other evidence that amounts to corroboration] can be used to secure a [conviction] in rape cases. In Road Traffic Offences, many's the conviction is secured solely on the evidence of one person, usually a garda.

cast_iron

seamus wrote:

I'd be interested to know the details of such a case. Let's say I had a grudge with someone two streets over. What's to stop me taking this guy's reg, and giving an official statement to Gardai about how he was handbraking around the local town? I have no proof.

Well Johnny gave you the legal side of it, the case details were fairly straightforward:
Witness (elderly person going for an evening walk) spotted a car doing a handbrake turn on the road, noted the reg and made a statement of complaint to the Gardai. The prosecuting Garda took the witness as credible, knew the car driver was usually up to that sort of thing anyway, and had numerous run-ins with him for previous traffic offences.

Garda decided to prosecute, went to court and got a conviction for dangerous driving.

I think the above wouldn't always result in a prosecution. The will of the Garda to pursue prosecution was quiet strong in this case. That wouldn't always be the case.