Judge correctly charged jury in murder trial in respect of visual identification of accused

Criminal law – appeal against murder conviction – visual identification – whether the learned trial judge erred in law in refusing the request of counsel for the accused to particularise the Casey warning to the particular circumstances of the case for the benefit of the jury in the course of his charge to the jury – whether the learned trial judge erred in law in refusing counsel for the accused application for a direction – whether the learned trial judge erred in law in refusing requests of both counsel for the prosecution and defence to summarise evidence of the forensic scientist – whether the trial judge erred in law in ruling as admissible the evidence obtained on foot of a warrant issued pursuant to s.29 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 – Section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 – danger of the identification/recognition evidence – question was not so much whether Ms. Ronan was mistaken in the identification, but rather the question of fact was whether she had, as she claimed, made an identification at all at the time – judge’s charge was adequate – appeal dismissed.