Director of Public Prosecutions -v- M.J. [2014] IECCA 21 (03 June 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- M.J. [2014] IECCA 21 (03 June 2014)

The evidence of the family confrontation and alleged admission was admissible and capable of sustaining the charges. Inconsistencies went to weight, not admissibility, and were for the jury to assess. The trial judge's directions and recharge adequately addressed legal concerns, including corroboration and delay. No unfairness or breach of constitutional rights occurred. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

Citation
[2014] IECCA 21
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: M. J.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions, Delay in Prosecution, Corroboration, Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Admissibility of Evidence Jury Directions Delay in Prosecution Corroboration Right to Fair Trial

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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

M. J.

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of evidence relating to alleged family confrontation and admission
  2. 2 Whether evidence could be related to counts on indictment
  3. 3 Refusal of direction at close of prosecution's case

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the family confrontation and alleged admission was admissible and capable of sustaining the charges. Inconsistencies went to weight, not admissibility, and were for the jury to assess. The trial judge's directions and recharge adequately addressed legal concerns, including corroboration and delay. No unfairness or breach of constitutional rights occurred. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal against conviction refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against conviction is refused.