Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court determined that, in prosecuting a person for angling with a lure other than an artificial fly as prohibited by bye-law, it is not necessary for the prosecution to produce the actual lure as evidence in court. The court concluded that circumstantial evidence, including the type of fishing rod and reel used and the observed angling methods, could lawfully support a conviction when the equipment and approach were incompatible with fly fishing. The court found the District Judge's reliance on inference from these circumstances to be reasonable, observing that criminal offences can be established by circumstantial evidence where it is rationally connected to the offence. The matter was remitted for final orders.
angling regulation – criminal prosecution – fishing bye-law – use of lure – artificial fly – circumstantial evidence – District Court – case stated – factual inference – onus of proof – equipment suitability – application for direction – production of evidence – appraisal of facts – Section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961
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.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now