D.P.P. -v- Daniel Doherty [2009] IECCA 17 (26 February 2009)

D.P.P. -v- Daniel Doherty [2009] IECCA 17 (26 February 2009)

The court found that the defence strategy, including the admission of certain statements and evidence, was a considered and reasonable tactical decision made with the applicant's consent. There was no incompetence or disregard of the applicant's interests, nor did the trial judge err in law by admitting the evidence or failing to intervene. The trial was fair and the verdicts were safe.

Citation
[2009] IECCA 17
Parties
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Applicant: Daniel Doherty
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Indecent Assault, Admissibility of Evidence, Competence of Counsel, Trial Procedure, Judicial Intervention, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Rape Indecent Assault Admissibility of Evidence Competence of Counsel Trial Procedure Judicial Intervention 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Daniel Doherty

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defence counsel's conduct amounted to incompetence or disregard of the applicant's interests so as to create a real risk of miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting statements not in conformity with s.21 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence outside the doctrine of recent complaint or otherwise inadmissible

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defence strategy, including the admission of certain statements and evidence, was a considered and reasonable tactical decision made with the applicant's consent. There was no incompetence or disregard of the applicant's interests, nor did the trial judge err in law by admitting the evidence or failing to intervene. The trial was fair and the verdicts were safe.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal against conviction refused