Director of Public Prosecutions v Gleeson [2018] IESC 53 (01 November 2018)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Gleeson [2018] IESC 53 (01 November 2018)

The trial judge's direction was correct in law, requiring the jury to assess duress based on reasonable firmness and only fixed characteristics such as age and gender; there was no evidence of special characteristics warranting further modification. The Court of Appeal erred in requiring consideration of the accused's occupation and circumstances beyond those fixed characteristics. The defence of duress must be assessed by an objective standard, modified only by permanent and fixed characteristics, not by individual circumstances such as occupation.

Citation
[2018] IESC 53
Parties
Prosecutor/appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/respondent: Trevor Gleeson
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision reversed.
Legal Topics
Duress, Jury Directions, Objective and Subjective Tests, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Duress Jury Directions Objective and Subjective Tests Burden of Proof

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/appellant

Trevor Gleeson

Accused/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct standard for assessing the defence of duress: objective, subjective, or a hybrid test?
  2. 2 Did the trial judge err in failing to direct the jury to consider the accused's occupation and circumstances in assessing duress?

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's direction was correct in law, requiring the jury to assess duress based on reasonable firmness and only fixed characteristics such as age and gender; there was no evidence of special characteristics warranting further modification. The Court of Appeal erred in requiring consideration of the accused's occupation and circumstances beyond those fixed characteristics. The defence of duress must be assessed by an objective standard, modified only by permanent and fixed characteristics, not by individual circumstances such as occupation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision reversed.

Orders

  • Decision of the Court of Appeal reversed.
  • Consequences, including possible reinstatement of convictions, subject to further discussion with counsel before final order.