D.P.P.-v- Duane Lindsey [2004] IECCA 6 (23 February 2004)
The trial judge failed to explain the meaning of corroboration and how its absence might affect the jury's view of the evidence, as required by s.10 Criminal Procedure Act 1993; this mandatory requirement was not met, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] IECCA 6
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Applicant: Duane Lindsey
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 23 February 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- conviction quashed, retrial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Jury Discharge Discretion, Corroboration Warning, Confession Evidence, Misuse of Drugs Act Offences
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Director of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutor
Duane Lindsey
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to discharge the jury due to juror concern
- 2 Whether the trial judge failed to adequately warn the jury about absence of corroboration for confession evidence under s.10 Criminal Procedure Act 1993
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge failed to explain the meaning of corroboration and how its absence might affect the jury's view of the evidence, as required by s.10 Criminal Procedure Act 1993; this mandatory requirement was not met, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed, retrial ordered
Orders
- Appeal granted on corroboration warning ground
- Retrial ordered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment