Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Solowiow [2018] IESC 9 (14 February 2018)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Solowiow [2018] IESC 9 (14 February 2018)

The trial judge's modified Lucas warning was sufficient and fair in the context of the case, as the lies were not central to the issue of provocation or intent, and the main issue was the defendant's credibility. No injustice arose from the omission of a more elaborate warning. Furthermore, the failure to requisition on the warning at trial, without explanation, precluded raising the issue on appeal under the Cronin principles.

Citation
[2018] IESC 9
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant/appellant: Waldemar Solowiow
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder affirmed.
Legal Topics
Murder, Provocation, Jury Directions, Lucas Warning, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Murder Provocation Jury Directions Lucas Warning Appeals Procedure

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

Waldemar Solowiow

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's modified Lucas warning to the jury regarding the defendant's lies was sufficient in the context of a murder trial where provocation was raised as a defence.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to requisition on the form of the Lucas warning at trial precluded raising the issue on appeal under the Cronin principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's modified Lucas warning was sufficient and fair in the context of the case, as the lies were not central to the issue of provocation or intent, and the main issue was the defendant's credibility. No injustice arose from the omission of a more elaborate warning. Furthermore, the failure to requisition on the warning at trial, without explanation, precluded raising the issue on appeal under the Cronin principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder affirmed.