Director of Public Prosecutions v E.R. (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 20 (28 January 2022)

Director of Public Prosecutions v E.R. (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 20 (28 January 2022)

The Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the issues of consent, mens rea, and the relevance of the car chase and subsequent apologies were comprehensive, correct, and fair. There was no requirement for the judge to specifically reference prosecution counsel's closing speech or to further elaborate on the defence's interpretation of the car chase and apologies. The grounds of appeal were rejected and the conviction was upheld.

Citation
[2022] IECA 20
Parties
Appellant: E. R.; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Mens Rea, Jury Directions, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Rape Consent Mens Rea Jury Directions Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

E. R.

Appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in jury directions regarding consent and mens rea for rape
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in addressing the relevance of the car chase to the defence case

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the issues of consent, mens rea, and the relevance of the car chase and subsequent apologies were comprehensive, correct, and fair. There was no requirement for the judge to specifically reference prosecution counsel's closing speech or to further elaborate on the defence's interpretation of the car chase and apologies. The grounds of appeal were rejected and the conviction was upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed