Director of Public Prosecutions -v- McD. [2016] IESC 71 (14 December 2016)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- McD. [2016] IESC 71 (14 December 2016)

The Supreme Court held that CCTV footage is, as a matter of principle, real evidence and not hearsay, and does not require technical evidence of its operation for admissibility. The trial judge erred in excluding the footage on the basis of lack of such evidence. The exclusion of this compelling evidence was erroneous and justified quashing the acquittal and ordering a retrial under section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010.

Citation
[2016] IESC 71
Parties
Prosecutor/appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/respondent: A. McD.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 / Supreme Court Appeal From Acquittal Following Evidential Rulings at Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Admissibility of CCTV Evidence, Hearsay Vs Real Evidence, Section 23 Criminal Procedure Act 2010, Section 19 Criminal Justice Act 1984, Retrial After Acquittal
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of CCTV Evidence Hearsay Vs Real Evidence Section 23 Criminal Procedure Act 2010 Section 19 Criminal Justice Act 1984 Retrial After Acquittal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/appellant

A. McD.

Accused/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Under Section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 / Supreme Court Appeal From Acquittal Following Evidential Rulings at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CCTV footage is hearsay or real evidence and its admissibility
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding CCTV footage and interview memorandum
  3. 3 Whether a retrial should be ordered under section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that CCTV footage is, as a matter of principle, real evidence and not hearsay, and does not require technical evidence of its operation for admissibility. The trial judge erred in excluding the footage on the basis of lack of such evidence. The exclusion of this compelling evidence was erroneous and justified quashing the acquittal and ordering a retrial under section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Acquittal quashed
  • Retrial of the accused ordered for the offences charged