Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Conviction for firearms offences was safe
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against conviction for firearms offences, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) no unfairness arose from the fact that the trial took place in Cork, from where the jurors were drawn; (b) even though the trial judge fell into error in failing to permit the appellant to dismiss his legal team and appear in person it was not an error of substance in the circumstances where there was no impact on the trial per se; (c) there were no grounds for the jury to have been discharged or for the case to have been withdrawn from them; and (d) there was no basis for suggesting that the verdict was either perverse or against the weight of the evidence.
Appeal against conviction for possession of a firearm, possession of ammunition, unlawful discharge of a firearm and causing serious harm - prior to trial appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal damage - whether trial judge should have acceded to application to have trial transferred to the Dublin Circuit - whether trial judge erred in refusing application for the appellant’s legal team to come off record - whether trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury - whether trial judge erred in admitting evidence purportedly from a mobile phone, in circumstances in which the provenance and integrity of the relevant data had not been proven - whether trial judge misdirected himself as to the law relating to adverse inferences - whether trial judge erred in law and fact in his charge to the jury - whether trial judge erred in admitting CCTV footage - whether case should have been withdrawn from jury - whether verdicts were perverse and against the weight of the evidence.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
