It is obvious from just a cursory look at this case

that it is first and foremost a Criminal Law case namely Causing Grievous Bodily Harm
under Section 18 Of The Offences against the Person Act 1861 (as Amended) .

This is a very serious offence and because of the

severe blow to the head sustained by Mary in this incident it could also

be interpreted as a Civil Law case.

John has inflicted serious harm upon Mary and should

be punished in the public interest. It must also be noted that John is innocent until
proven guilty, so the prosecution team representing Mary

ie the Gardai, should investigate and establish the Criminal Offence.

The Gardai in this Case would initially endeavour to ascertain

the Actus Reus (Latin for “guilty act”) and Mens Rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) for this
Criminal Offence.

The Mens Rea in this Case is that the Accused (John)

Intended to perform the Criminal Act. The Actus Reus in this Case was that the
Accused (John) as a consequence of his conduct inflicted serious harm upon the Plaintiff
(Mary).

This evidence in addition to Marys version

of events would constitute an arrestable offence. The Accused would then be arrested
by the Gardai and brought to the Garda Station. The Gardai at the Station would have
the power to take fingerprints and make forensic tests under Section 12 of the Criminal
Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1997. The Accused would also be told by the
Gardai of his right to consult a solicitor. A file would then be sent to the Director Of
Public Prosecutions and the Accused would be remanded in custody until the next
sitting of the District Court.

Once the decision is made to prosecute, the Defendant (John)

would be brought before the District Court and formally charged.

Where the Defendant is charged with an indictable offence, the Criminal Procedure Act
1967 provides in general for two options: one is that the judge may in some instances
be empowered to deal with the Case summarily; the other is that the judge must
conduct a preliminary examination of the charge.
 This Case is clearly an indictable offence and cannot be dealt
with summarily so before the Case can proceed to trial a preliminary examination by the
judge must take place in the District Court.

Under the Criminal Procedure 1967 Act, the prosecution must provide to the defence all
the evidence which the prosecution intends to use at trial.

This material is called the Book Of Evidence, includes a statement

of charges, a list of Witnesses it is proposed to call at trial and their statements and a
list of exhibits (such as photographs) and any other relevant material such as forensic
evidence, including genetic fingerprinting (DNA evidence). Under Section 8 of the
Criminal Procedure 1967 Act if the judge is satisfied with the Book Of Evidence he/she
is required to send the Case forward for trial to the Circuit Criminal Court. The
Accused person is, usually, entitled to bail thus being free up to the time of trial.

New powers have been given to the Director Of Public

Prosecutions to oppose all bail decisions granted by the District Courts.

Senior Garda Officers believe many criminals who are not automatically remanded in
custody may potentially re-offend, abscond or interfere with witnesses or evidence. Under
Section 19(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2007, the independent state prosecutor will be
able to object to individual bail conditions set by the District Court.

The system of court procedure that would operate in a Circuit

Criminal Court under Criminal Law would be an adversarial system. This means that the
judge in a Case plays the role of impartial referee between two sides in a contest that
takes place in courtroom. The basis of Criminal Court hearings is that evidence is
given under Oath. All testimony, must be given under Oath unless there is consent by
both the prosecution and the defence that the evidence need not be sworn.

As a general rule all evidence must be sworn. Sworn evidence may

be given in writing, in the form of an affidavit, which is a document that is sworn in
solemn form by a witness before a Commissioner for Oaths. Any untrue statements
contained in an affidavit are equally subject to a crime of perjury as evidence sworn
orally in court.

In criminal trials, the defence team are unlikely to agree in advance

that certain crucial evidence is “agreed”, particularly where there is any doubt about its
admissibility, especially where vital forensic evidence might be an issue. The general law
of evidence can be summed up by the principal that all evidence that is sufficiently
relevant to an issue is admissible while all evidence that is not sufficiently relevant
should be excluded. There are two major exceptions to the relevancy principal, namely
that evidence of hearsay and evidence of opinion are inadmissible.
 In my opinion, one major defence for the defendant (John) is the
accusatorial nature of criminal trials in Ireland. Under the accusatorial approach where a
person is charged with having committed a crime, this must be established by the State,
independently gathering evidence without resorting to evidence from the defendant.

This puts great onus on the Gardai Siochana to investigate thoroughly

and to prosecute according to the Criminal Law Justice System. This becomes even more
important given the fact that the Defendant (John) is entitled to be acquitted by jury if
the State has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This means that even if
the jury considers that the State has made a case which requires some explanation from
the Defendant (John), he still is entitled to be found not guilty if there is reasonable
doubt in their mind.

I think the Defendant (John) will plead guilty in order to receive a

lesser sentence. Where the Accused pleads guilty in this Case, the court will lessen the
sentence on the basis that the Plaintiff (Mary) was spared the ordeal of giving evidence
and having to re-live the traumatic experience. If the Defendant (John) is a man of
means, the Plaintiff (Mary) has the option of taking a Civil Action against the
Defendant (John) for compensation and aggravated damages as consequence of the severe
blow to the head. It must be noted that a conviction in the Criminal Court does not
automatically mean success in the Civil Court.