Garda interviews.

seb65

Procrastastudy wrote: »

So you're saying that innocent until proven guilty is some other state than innocent despite the overwhelming Irish and Common Law jurisprudence to say otherwise?

While I concede people have difficulty with the concept and say X must have done it how is what the 'mob' think without considering the case relevant?

To your point on peers - how does any jury ever acquit then?

What I'm saying is that you said the Jury is told the defendant is innocent. If they are told the defendant is innocent, what do they have left to decide?

That's why I think you mean innocent until proven guilty. Of course the jury is not told the defendant is innocent (by the judge or the DPP). They are told the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

As to your other points, whether the defendant is innocent or guilty is determined by whether they committed the offence or not. The defendant is not made innocent or guilty by the decision of the jury. "Innocent" and "not guilty" are two separate states of being.

Juries do acquit, however, that does not mean they always make the correct decision. Many an innocent man (or woman) has been found guilty.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that you said the Jury is told the defendant is innocent. If they are told the defendant is innocent, what do they have left to decide?

That's why I think you mean innocent until proven guilty. Of course the jury is not told the defendant is innocent (by the judge or the DPP). They are told the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

As to your other points, whether the defendant is innocent or guilty is determined by whether they committed the offence or not. The defendant is not made innocent or guilty by the decision of the jury. "Innocent" and "not guilty" are two separate states of being.

Juries do acquit, however, that does not mean they always make the correct decision. Many an innocent man (or woman) has been found guilty.

I think we fundamentally disagree and from my point of view leave it at that. Yes indeed the words used might be innocent until proven guilty but I disagree that changes anything - the accused is still innocent - but fair enough greater clarity is never a bad thing.

(NB please note my edit and apologies for getting personal however slight.)

We've got a bit of point here - so here goes. In a system that places so much emphasis on oral evidence I find it very strange that portions of the interview aren't simply played back in court. So that the jury can hear everything - including any 'forceful questioning' on behalf of the guards but also any signs from the accused that he might be lying. I find it odd we distil it down to an easily manipulated written form.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I think we fundamentally disagree and from my point of view leave it at that. Yes indeed the words used might be innocent until proven guilty but I disagree that changes anything - the accused is still innocent - but fair enough greater clarity is never a bad thing.

(NB please note my edit and apologies for getting personal however slight.)

We've got a bit of point here - so here goes. In a system that places so much emphasis on oral evidence I find it very strange that portions of the interview aren't simply played back in court. So that the jury can hear everything - including any 'forceful questioning' on behalf of the guards but also any signs from the accused that he might be lying. I find it odd we distil it down to an easily manipulated written form.

The accused can have the tape played it happens a lot in fact as long as questions are answered, it's god awful boring though.

I have never seen it done, I have seen AGS try to the inferences but as I said they have not been able to do so.


i have seen it done in many trials and i can assure you it is taken into consideration.

ResearchWill

bubblypop wrote: »

I have never seen it done, I have seen AGS try to the inferences but as I said they have not been able to do so.


i have seen it done in many trials and i can assure you it is taken into consideration.

I have been involved in a number of cases where AGS have tried to use the inferences they have not yet done so with any success. Maybe I'm just better than the defence barristers you have seen in action. I have spoken to a number of both prosecution and defence barristers and all have told me they never saw it used to any success, I am only aware of only a couple of CCA decisions on the issue including the one that led to the 2007 amendment.

valleyoftheunos

I think I might take the opinion of the Criminal laywer on this one.

By which I mean Lawyer who practices in the area of Criminal Law