Director of Public Prosecutions v McNamara (Approved) [2020] IESC 34 (26 June 2020)

Director of Public Prosecutions v McNamara (Approved) [2020] IESC 34 (26 June 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the defence of provocation is not wholly subjective and retains objective elements, including the requirement for a sudden loss of self-control and a reasonable relationship between the provocation and the response. The trial judge has a duty to withdraw the defence from the jury where there is no evidence on which a properly instructed jury could find for the accused. In this case, the events relied on as provocation were not sufficiently proximate in time or nature to justify leaving the defence to the jury. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction for murder upheld.

Citation
[2020] IESC 34
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: The People (Director of Public Prosecutions); Accused/appellant: Alan McNamara
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld.
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Defence of Provocation, Self Defence, Judicial Role in Withdrawing Defences, Objective Vs Subjective Test in Provocation
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Defence of Provocation Self Defence Judicial Role in Withdrawing Defences Objective Vs Subjective Test in Provocation

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 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The People (Director of Public Prosecutions)

Prosecutor/respondent

Alan McNamara

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of provocation requires the provoking action or words to come from the ultimate victim
  2. 2 To what extent background circumstances can found or inform the defence of provocation
  3. 3 Whether the defence of provocation contains any objective element as to reaction, mode, or time of response

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the defence of provocation is not wholly subjective and retains objective elements, including the requirement for a sudden loss of self-control and a reasonable relationship between the provocation and the response. The trial judge has a duty to withdraw the defence from the jury where there is no evidence on which a properly instructed jury could find for the accused. In this case, the events relied on as provocation were not sufficiently proximate in time or nature to justify leaving the defence to the jury. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction for murder upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder upheld.