DPP v Darragh Small [2011] IECCA 4 (17 February 2011)

DPP v Darragh Small [2011] IECCA 4 (17 February 2011)

The Court held that the circumstances did not amount to patently unfair procedures; the trial judge acted within discretion, facilitated the defence, and the evidence in question was not central. Admission of the letter was fair and pragmatic. No point of law of exceptional public importance arose.

Citation
[2011] IECCA 4
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: The People (at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions); Defendant/applicant: Darragh Small
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Certificate Under S.29(2) Courts of Justice Act, 1924
Outcome
application for certificate refused
Legal Topics
Certificate for Appeal, Fair Trial Procedures, Evidence Disclosure, Hearsay Rule
Criminal Law Certificate for Appeal Fair Trial Procedures Evidence Disclosure Hearsay Rule

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 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The People (at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Prosecutor/respondent

Darragh Small

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Certificate Under S.29(2) Courts of Justice Act, 1924

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial involved patently unfair procedures justifying discharge of the jury
  2. 2 Whether the test applied in DPP v McKevitt is appropriate for cases involving patently unfair procedures versus risk of unfairness
  3. 3 Whether failure to disclose evidence and absence of oral testimony breached the applicant's rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the circumstances did not amount to patently unfair procedures; the trial judge acted within discretion, facilitated the defence, and the evidence in question was not central. Admission of the letter was fair and pragmatic. No point of law of exceptional public importance arose.

Court Disposition

application for certificate refused

Orders

  • application for certificate under s.29(2) Courts of Justice Act, 1924 refused