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 against conviction for anal rape, on the grounds that: (a) it had been within the discretion of the trial judge to decide whether to accede to the application for a corroboration warning or to decline; (b) save in the context of a corroboration warning where it is necessary to identify the evidence in the case that is potentially corroborative, there is no requirement for a trial judge to address the question of corroboration, but neither is there anything to stop the trial judge doing so and whether to do so is within the judge's discretion; and (c) reading the judge's charge as a whole it was not skewed or unbalanced.
Appeal against conviction for anal rape of wife by husband - potential corroboration in relation to some incidents but not in relation to others - appellant only convicted on those charges where there was potentially corroborative evidence - whether trial judge erred in declining to accede to request for corroboration warning - whether trial judge erred in referring to aspects of the evidence as potentially corroborative, while refusing to direct the jury as to the limitation of such evidence - whether the judge's charge to the jury had been structured in such a way so as to make it unfair.
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 e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now