Robbery convictions quashed where judge failed to instruct jury of alternative verdicts

Criminal law – appeal of conviction for causing serious harm and robbery of the victim’s mobile phone – s. 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997 – s. 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 – whether the trial judge erred in failing to grant applications for a direction of no case to answer by reason of lack of evidence – whether the trial judge erred in failing to give any or any adequate reasons for the refusal to grant the applications for a direction – whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury after the jury had heard that Damien Fitzgerald was “signing on” at the time of the incident – whether the trial judge erred in refusing to charge the jury in respect of an alternative verdict of handling or possessing the property contrary to section 17 or section 18 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 – whether the trial judge erred in failing to charge the jury in respect of a possible innocent explanation for the blood of the injured party being found on the clothes of Bill O’Driscoll and, having being requisitioned on same, in failing to address the possibility that the blood was on the clothes through innocent contact – there was sufficient evidenceto allow the matter to go to the jury – alternative verdicts – inadequate charge re possible innocent explanations – s. 55 of the Criminal Law (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 – Thomas O’Malley, The Criminal Process (2009: Round Hall Thomson Reuters) – trial judge erred in ruling that it was not open to the court to instruct the jury with respect to the possibility of bringing in alternative verdicts on the robbery charges – defence case was fairly and accurately summarised for the jury – alleged perversity in the verdict – convictions of both appellants for causing serious harm are safe but convictions for robbery must be quashed – appeal allowed.