Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fictional Summons Conundrum

Options
  • 14-09-2016 9:42am
    #1
    Gate12
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭


    I wonder can anyone help me on this:

    A man called Jim is a suspect in a murder from 40 years ago, but he goes missing so there's only an inquest, no trial. It comes to light today that another man, Frank, may have information about the murder. Can the police issue a summons to compel Frank to be called in for questioning? It wouldn't even be to compel him to appear in court, because without the original suspect, there would never be a trial. And would the Irish situation be the same as the British? From the look of things online, the police can't do anything, but maybe I've got it wrong.

    It's a fictional case, and thanks a million in advance.
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Kings Inns or bust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Kings Inns or bust


    I actually haven't a clue and would be very interested to know so good OP, OP.

    What I will say though is hypothetically many, many hours have been spent thinking up ways to avoid giving the guards what they want. What's far from hypothetical is that AGS have time honoured and very effective means of getting what they want eventually. There's nothing better/worse than a motivated guard. One of the most effective means of motivation is saying no.


  • Options
    #3
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    I would not think that there was any summons that could be issued to compel Frank to attend on the Gardaí simply for questioning.

    If there was a prosecution of another party Frank could be served with a witness summons compelling him to attend court. You must comply with a witness summons.

    If they had proper grounds Frank might be arrested on suspicion of committing an offence and questioned accordingly. However, they would have to caution Frank in the usual way to avoid self-incrimination. So, if Frank was up to no good he could give a no-comment interview.

    Separate from the preceding scenario, if Frank had relevant information about a crime he might face prosecution for withholding information as that is an offence.


  • Options
    #4
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,723 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Withholding information in relation to murder is a crime?

    Misprision of a felony was abolished along with the CL distinction between misdemeanor and felony with the CLA 1997.

    Has this been replaced since?


  • Options
    #5
    Kings Inns or bust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Kings Inns or bust


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    Withholding information in relation to murder is a crime?

    Misprision of a felony was abolished along with the CL distinction between misdemeanor and felony with the CLA 1997.

    Has this been replaced since?

    Not to my rather incomplete knowledge.


  • Options
    #6
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Foggy Jew
    Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Foggy Jew


    Is a summons required for a person to be taken in for questioning? I don't think so.

    It's the bally ballyness of it that makes it all seem so bally bally.



  • Options
    #8
    Kings Inns or bust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Kings Inns or bust


    Foggy Jew wrote: »
    Is a summons required for a person to be taken in for questioning? I don't think so.

    What do you think is needed to compel someone to go in for questioning?

    Honest question, I'm not trying to be glib here I'm genuinely at a loss on this one.


  • Options
    #9
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    On a practical level it would be with exceptional difficulty I would imagine.

    However, if the evidence is there to be found a suspect may be open to being charged with withholding information.


  • Options
    #10
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    Kings Inns or bust wrote: »
    What do you think is needed to compel someone to go in for questioning?

    Honest question, I'm not trying to be glib here I'm genuinely at a loss on this one.

    Heavy hints off the record as to possible legal consequences of failure to help or obstructing. In other words a person may well be convinced to voluntarily agree to " assisting Gardaí with their enquiries " :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #11
    Gate12
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Gate12


    Big thanks everyone. I was thinking that Frank can't be compelled for questioning, especially if there's no ongoing trial. But you're right Nutley Boy, Frank may have to be convinced to open up another way. The police in question are decent though, so there can't be any arm-twisting. Carrots instead of sticks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,211 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Foggy Jew wrote: »
    Is a summons required for a person to be taken in for questioning? I don't think so.

    A person must be arrested to be taken in for questioning. The guards have no general power of arrest. Unless they have a warrant for the person's arrest they must rely on a statutory power of arrest. A person can voluntarily present themselves for interview which is a different situation.


  • Options
    #13
    Gate12
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Gate12


    Thanks CH. Can you arrest someone for withholding evidence on a 40-year-old case in which the prime suspect is dead? (And the evidence relates to them?)


  • Options
    #14
    brian_t
    Registered Users Posts: 6,683 ✭✭✭brian_t


    Gate12 wrote: »
    Thanks CH. Can you arrest someone for withholding evidence on a 40-year-old case in which the prime suspect is dead? (And the evidence relates to them?)

    In the OP was the prime suspect just missing not dead?


  • Options
    #15
    Gate12
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Gate12


    Good question! The prime suspect was missing for 40 years and has just turned up dead, which is the case the police are now working on and why they've contacted Frank, as he knew the man. Frank let slip a few things about the original murder, and now they want to question him about that. But I don't think they can compel him?


  • Options
    #16
    UrbanFox
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭UrbanFox


    The passage of time and the demise of the prime suspect do not nullify the separate criminality of Frank's actions in relation to witholding information, obstruction or perverting the course of justice. Whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute is another matter entirely.


  • Options
    #17
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,723 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Withholding information in relation to murder is not a crime.


  • Options
    #18
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,211 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Gate12 wrote: »
    Good question! The prime suspect was missing for 40 years and has just turned up dead, which is the case the police are now working on and why they've contacted Frank, as he knew the man. Frank let slip a few things about the original murder, and now they want to question him about that. But I don't think they can compel him?

    He is under no obligation to say anything, even if he is arrested. If he was arrested on suspicion of having committed some offence he would have to be released if he was not charged within the appropriate period which could be as little as six hours. In all likelihood there would not be enough information to charge him within that time.


  • Options
    #19
    Kevin3
    Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭Kevin3


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    Withholding information in relation to murder is not a crime.

    Actually, it is an offence and is an offence against the state so you could be detained and questioned for up to 3 days under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/39/section/9/enacted/en/html


  • Options
    #20
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Kevin3 wrote: »
    Actually, it is an offence and is an offence against the state so you could be detained and questioned for up to 3 days under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/39/section/9/enacted/en/html

    And someone was recently charged with such an offence in relation to Gareth Hutch murder IIRC.


  • Options
    #21
    Gate12
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Gate12


    So they can't compel him to appear for questioning, but they could threaten him with that. And then it's up to him. Grand, so. It might be what I need :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,397 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    If there's an inquest, as stated in the OP, then the Frank can be summoned to give evidence at the inquest.

    The guards can (and will) attempt to interview him in advance of the inquest, but they can't compel him to co-operate. Depending on exactly what "few things Frank let slip about the original murder", they may wish to question Frank not in connection with a possible crime committed by someone else who has now disappeared/been found to have died, but in connection with a possible crime committed by Frank, such as conspiracy to murder, or aiding and abettting. They may even be in a position to arrest and charge him. But they can't compel him to answer questions.

    If summoned to testify at the inquest, he can be compelled to take the stand but he has the privilege against self-incrimination; he can decline to answer questions if the answer would tend to incriminate him.


Advertisement