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 assault conviction, finding that: 1) the trial judge’s examination of witnesses and interventions did not interfere with the appellant’s defence or with his right to a fair trial; and 2) the trial judge’s remark that perhaps the victim’s jacket was the reason why the victim had not sustained any apparent injuries did not render the verdict unsafe.
Criminal law – appeal of assault causing harm conviction – s. 3 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 – whether trial judge erred in law carrying out a cross examination of each of the accused and a witness – whether trial judge erred in law in making reference to the fact that perhaps the victim’s jacket was the reason why the victim had not sustained any apparent injuries to his body in the alleged assault – whether trial judge’s actions effectively amounted to a further cross examination of the two witnesses – interventions in the present case are nowhere near as serious as those referred to in the McGuinness or Clewer cases – judge was entitled to make the remark he did about jacket – 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