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 |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of convictions for causing serious harm and production - in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person - of an article capable of inflicting serious injury arising from a multiple stabbing incident, on the grounds that: 1) it was necessary to give the conventional accomplice warning and to tell the jury that it is dangerous to convict on the evidence of an accomplice in the absence of corroboration; however the jury would inevitably have come to the conclusion that the evidence was corroborated by other evidence, and so the proviso can be applied since there has been no miscarriage of justice as a result of the trial judge’s misdirection on this issue; and 2) the manner in which the trial judge recharged the jury in respect of the definition of serious harm, including in circumstances where the prosecution evidence was to the effect that the injury itself (as opposed to the action of stabbing) had not caused a risk to the life of the complainant, was adequate.
Criminal law – appeal of convictions for causing serious harm and production, in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person, of an article capable of inflicting serious injury – s. 4 of the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997 – s. 11 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990 – summary of the evidence before the jury – appropriate warning to the jury in respect of the evidence of a person who might be regarded as an accomplice – manner in which the trial judge recharged the jury in respect of the definition of serious harm including in circumstances where the prosecution evidence was to the effect that the injury itself (as opposed to the action of stabbing) had not caused a risk to the life of the complainant – alleged inadequacy of the accomplice warning – “The Judge’s Charge in Criminal Trials” by Genevieve Coonan and Brian Foley (Round Hall: 2008) – “Evidence” (2nd Ed.) Declan McGrath – proviso contained within s. 3(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1993 applied – the serious harm issue – trial judge was entirely correct to allow the matter to go to the jury – no error in the matter in which the jury was charged – appeal dismissed.
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