Quick question for the Legal Eagles on AAM.
I was chatting to someone about an upcoming court appearance recently and they were telling me that their friend was basically screwed as the Judge would always take the word of a Garda above the word of a citizen. This is despite the fact that the Garda has no witnesses to back up his statement.
This got me thinking about the Constitution. In Article 40 (Fundamental Right (Personal Rights)) it states that all citizens shall be held equal before the Law.
If Judges are supposed to administer Justice according to the Facts/Evidence placed before them, how can they deem someone guilty in a case where its one persons word against another?
I was chatting to someone about an upcoming court appearance recently and they were telling me that their friend was basically screwed as the Judge would always take the word of a Garda above the word of a citizen. This is despite the fact that the Garda has no witnesses to back up his statement.
This got me thinking about the Constitution. In Article 40 (Fundamental Right (Personal Rights)) it states that all citizens shall be held equal before the Law.
If Judges are supposed to administer Justice according to the Facts/Evidence placed before them, how can they deem someone guilty in a case where its one persons word against another?