At the training center, at lectures in a judge of the Criminal Court of Ireland (retired) had the opportunity to communicate with the judge in a question-and-answer format.
As a polygraph examiner, I decided to take the opportunity to learn more about the role of the polygraph and expert opinions of polygraph examiners in criminal cases, both on assigned forensic examinations and on the examinations of private specialists.

In particular, is it in court cases that the opinion of a polygraph examiner is presented as evidence?
And if so, then:
What is the attitude of judges to such evidence/conclusions?
Are they given a proper grade?
How is the conclusion of a polygraph examiner evaluated – as a separate piece of evidence or only in conjunction with other evidence?

I received an extensive answer to questions, which, boiled down to the fact that during the period of legal practice of our lecturer-judge (since 1970, he started as a solicitor), he has never encountered this type of evidence: neither in the materials of criminal cases, nor in legal practice when collecting evidence for the client’s defense.

However, he theoretically admitted that the Garda (police), when investigating criminal cases, uses a polygraph, but he does not know or hear about it for sure. The above uncertainty did not suit me and I began to look for information on Irish judicial sites and polygraph examiner sites. After all, we know who seeks – finds!

Irish polygraph examiners (there are actually few of them) are convinced that their conclusions are the same evidence of a person’s involvement/non-involvement in the event as other evidence, and should be examined by the court in conjunction with other evidence. At the same time, they note that the conclusion of a polygraph examiner cannot accuse/acquit a suspect or accused separately from other evidence.

In Ireland, polygraph test results can be used as evidence in a defence case, but the police cannot use them in court as evidence of guilt. Most Irish lawyers are quite skeptical about polygraph examinations and their evaluation as evidence, but there are those who actively use them in defense.

For example, I found a case in the materials of which the conclusion of a polygraph examiner appeared:

A county councillor who voluntarily took a lie detector test has spoken of his “huge relief” after the High Court quashed his conviction for assault.

Danny C., 48 y.o., was so convinced of his innocence that he delivered a lie detector test conclusion to the High Court as part of his two-year legal battle.

Circumstances of the case: Danny C. and his brother Michael were convicted at Bantry District Court on 26 March 2011 of assaulting a man in a pub in Trafrasc, close to their home in Adrigola. The district court fined them 2000 euros. After considering the case, he voluntarily went to Dun Laoghaire, where he took a polygraph test.
The main questions of the study were the following:
1) Did he attack the man in question at The Sugar Loaf Bar, Trafrask, on 5 March 2010?
2) Did he have any physical contact with this person?
3) Was he verbally abusive to him?
4) Did he commit threatening actions that night?

The accused answered “no” to each of the questions, and the results of the polygraph examination in each case indicated that he was telling the truth.

The sentence of his brother, Michael, was also overturned.

Yuliia BABENKO
Attorney at law, polygraph examiner,
member All-Ukrainian Association of Polygraph Examiners