Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Cooper [2015] IEHC 240 (16 April 2015)

The prosecution is not required to prove a complaint by an injured party, ownership of the property, or the value of the damage in a prosecution under s.2(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1991 due to the statutory presumption in s.7(2)(a).

Citation: [2015] IEHC 240
Parties: Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda James Kearney); Defendant: David Cooper
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Judgment Date: 16 April 2015
Procedural Posture: Case Stated (criminal) / High Court Consultative Determination on Questions of Law From District Court
Outcome: All questions answered in the negative; prosecution need not prove complaint, ownership, or value; no direction of no case to answer required.
Legal Topics: Criminal Damage, Burden of Proof, Presumptions in Criminal Law, Interpretation of Statutes

Criminal Law Criminal Damage Burden of Proof Presumptions in Criminal Law Interpretation of Statutes

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda James Kearney)

Prosecutor

David Cooper

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (criminal) / High Court Consultative Determination on Questions of Law From District Court

Legal Issues

1 Is a complaint by an injured party necessary for prosecution under s.2(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1991?
2 Is evidence of ownership of the damaged property required?
3 Is evidence of the value or cost of the damage required?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

All questions answered in the negative; prosecution need not prove complaint, ownership, or value; no direction of no case to answer required.

Orders

Questions (i)-(iv) answered 'No' as set out in the judgment.