Director of Public Prosecutions -v- McNulty [2014] IECCA 34 (29 October 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- McNulty [2014] IECCA 34 (29 October 2014)

Applicant failed to demonstrate that the points raised were of exceptional public importance or desirable in the public interest; issues concerned application of law to facts and judge's discretion in jury directions, not contested points of law requiring clarification.

Citation
[2014] IECCA 34
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Fergal McNulty; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Section 29 Certification Application (courts of Justice Act, 1924) / Post Conviction, Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Alibi Defence, Identification Evidence, Burden of Proof, Section 29 Certification, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Alibi Defence Identification Evidence Burden of Proof Section 29 Certification 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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fergal McNulty

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 29 Certification Application (courts of Justice Act, 1924) / Post Conviction, Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge must instruct jury on relationship between alibi defence and burden of proof
  2. 2 Whether prosecution must prove alibi witnesses are not truthful beyond reasonable doubt before conviction
  3. 3 Whether rejection of alibi defence by jury lends support to identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate that the points raised were of exceptional public importance or desirable in the public interest; issues concerned application of law to facts and judge's discretion in jury directions, not contested points of law requiring clarification.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Section 29 certificate for leave to appeal to Supreme Court denied