D.P.P. (People) v. Cronin [2008] IECCA 94 (23 June 2008)
The authorities relied upon by the applicant do not support the admissibility of the proposed cross-examination, as no evidence or suggestion regarding complainant's sexual history was led. The two-stage process for corroboration assessment is not law in Ireland, and the trial judge's Lucas warning was exemplary and met all legal requirements.
- Citation
- [2008] IECCA 94
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Applicant: James Cronin
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 23 June 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Rape, False Imprisonment, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions, Corroboration, Lucas Warning
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Director of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutor
James Cronin
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Admissibility of cross-examination regarding contraceptive use
- 2 Proper jury direction on lies as corroboration
- 3 Applicability of two-stage process for corroboration assessment
Ratio Decidendi
The authorities relied upon by the applicant do not support the admissibility of the proposed cross-examination, as no evidence or suggestion regarding complainant's sexual history was led. The two-stage process for corroboration assessment is not law in Ireland, and the trial judge's Lucas warning was exemplary and met all legal requirements.
Court Disposition
leave to appeal refused
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