D.P.P.-v- A.D. [2008] IECCA 101 (25 July 2008)

D.P.P.-v- A.D. [2008] IECCA 101 (25 July 2008)

The trial judge applied the correct legal test in determining whether the case should go to the jury, there was sufficient evidence to justify the case proceeding, the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent or perverse, and the admission of the interview and video evidence did not breach the applicant's constitutional rights as there was no causative link established between the denial of access to a solicitor and the admissions made.

Citation
[2008] IECCA 101
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Applicant: A. D.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
Refused leave to appeal conviction
Legal Topics
Rape, Assault Causing Harm, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions, Right of Access to Solicitor, Unlawful Detention, Perversity of Jury Verdict
Criminal Law Rape Assault Causing Harm Admissibility of Evidence Jury Directions Right of Access to Solicitor Unlawful Detention Perversity of Jury Verdict

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

A. D.

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to withdraw the charges from the jury at the end of the prosecution evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the contents and video of the applicant's interview with the Gardai
  3. 3 Whether the jury's verdict was perverse

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge applied the correct legal test in determining whether the case should go to the jury, there was sufficient evidence to justify the case proceeding, the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent or perverse, and the admission of the interview and video evidence did not breach the applicant's constitutional rights as there was no causative link established between the denial of access to a solicitor and the admissions made.

Court Disposition

Refused leave to appeal conviction