Director of Public Prosecutions v A.E. (Approved) [2022] IECA 152 (20 June 2022)

Director of Public Prosecutions v A.E. (Approved) [2022] IECA 152 (20 June 2022)

The Court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to consider and that any vagueness or weaknesses were matters for the jury. The admissions in the memorandum of interview were not obtained by inducement, as the trial judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that no promise or threat was made. The trial judge acted properly in refusing to direct acquittal, admitting the interview, and in relation to the jury’s request.

Citation
[2022] IECA 152
Parties
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Appellant: A. E.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Assault Causing Harm, Admissibility of Confession, Inducement, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Rape Assault Causing Harm Admissibility of Confession Inducement Jury Directions

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

A. E.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to direct acquittal on all counts
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the memorandum of interview of the accused
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to accede to the jury’s request to re-hear the closing speech of defence counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to consider and that any vagueness or weaknesses were matters for the jury. The admissions in the memorandum of interview were not obtained by inducement, as the trial judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that no promise or threat was made. The trial judge acted properly in refusing to direct acquittal, admitting the interview, and in relation to the jury’s request.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction affirmed
  • No retrial ordered