Director of Public Prosecutions v Harty (Approved) [2022] IECA 188 (12 May 2022)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Harty (Approved) [2022] IECA 188 (12 May 2022)

All grounds of appeal were rejected. The Court held that the trial judge correctly admitted the 999 call as original evidence, properly declared the witness hostile, properly admitted the first statement under Section 16, and correctly admitted the other contested evidence. There was sufficient evidence for the endangerment charge to go to the jury. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] IECA 188
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: William Harty
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Hostile Witness, Admissibility of Evidence, Criminal Damage, Endangerment, Section 16 Criminal Justice Act 2006, Rule Against Narrative, Preservation of Crime Scene
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Hostile Witness Admissibility of Evidence Criminal Damage Endangerment Section 16 Criminal Justice Act 2006 Rule Against Narrative +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

William Harty

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the 999 call as evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in categorising the 999 call as real evidence
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in declaring Josephine Harty a hostile witness

Ratio Decidendi

All grounds of appeal were rejected. The Court held that the trial judge correctly admitted the 999 call as original evidence, properly declared the witness hostile, properly admitted the first statement under Section 16, and correctly admitted the other contested evidence. There was sufficient evidence for the endangerment charge to go to the jury. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed