Prove guilt V declare guilt

Hagar

I've read in the motoring forum several times that there is no need for a Garda to present evidence of speeding or dangerous driving, that his word is taken as the truth and is basically beyond contradiction.

If this is so, does this carry through to other areas of the court system?
And if not, why not?
And if not, does this not undermine the position taken re speeding for example?
Has a limit been set to the seeming absolute trust the courts put in the word of a Garda ?

How grave does an offence have to be before it is necessary to "prove" guilt as opposed to "declare" guilt?

Victor

The (lower) courts are much more willing to take uncorroberated Garda evidence for minor offences than for serious offences. Of course, the judge is quite willing to take both sides evidence, but is more likely to put weight on the Garda evidence.

You can imagine where the situation would arise where motorists would simply deny being in the location of the speed check or that they were only doing X speed, blah, blah, blah.

Under the Offences Against the State Act(?), evidence of senior gardaí as to whether someone was part of a paramilitary organisation is accepted, but he courts are willing to test this - "Why do you think he is in the IRA?".

johnnyskeleton

Hagar wrote:

I've read in the motoring forum several times that there is no need for a Garda to present evidence of speeding or dangerous driving, that his word is taken as the truth and is basically beyond contradiction.

If a garda does not give evidence there can be no conviction. When a garda does give evidence of an offence, the accused must raise a reasonable doubt as to the truth of the garda's evidence. A blanket denial of speeding is highly unlikely to raise a reasonable doubt, but proof that your car cannot travel as fast as the garda alleges would, in my view, raise such a doubt. You have to remember as well that Gardai give evidence in court fairly often over the course of a lifetime, so they are quite comfortable in a courtroom. Someone called up for speeding, apart from not having a thorogh knowledge of the law and proceedure, may also feel quite intimidated by a courtroom full of people.

Hagar wrote:

If this is so, does this carry through to other areas of the court system?

Evidence which is uncontradicted and could reasonably be true is enough for a jury to return a verdict of guilty in any case. Again, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The courts prefer oral evidence to real evidence such as documents, videos etc, and in any case the majority of rape prosecutions are based entirely on oral evidence.

Hagar wrote:

Has a limit been set to the seeming absolute trust the courts put in the word of a Garda ?

Being realistic, the courts need a reason not to believe a garda. Hence cross examination and/or the defence giving evidence.

Hagar wrote:

How grave does an offence have to be before it is necessary to "prove" guilt as opposed to "declare" guilt?

Every criminal offence in Ireland must be proved, unless the accused pleads guilty in which case he admits the facts in their entirity (or as agreed). Once the offence has been proved to the satisfaction of the trier of fact (a jury in indictable offences, a judge in summary offences) they are entitled to find the accused guilty. I suppose that once they find the accused guilty they "declare" guilt, but in all criminal cases the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.