Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Connors [2015] IEHC 774 (08 December 2015)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Connors [2015] IEHC 774 (08 December 2015)

In prosecutions under s.11 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, the prosecution must prove the accused was present as a trespasser, but it is not necessary to call evidence from the owner or occupier in every case. The court may infer trespass from the circumstances and conduct of the accused. In this case, the evidence provided by the arresting garda was sufficient to prove absence of permission and intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 774
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Andrew Doyle); Defendant: Jimmy Connors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Judgment on Case Stated From District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; District Court conviction affirmed.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Burden of Proof, Summary Offences, Intent, Evidence Requirements
Criminal Law Trespass Burden of Proof Summary Offences Intent Evidence Requirements

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

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Andrew Doyle)

Prosecutor

Jimmy Connors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Judgment on Case Stated From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution must prove the accused entered as a trespasser under s.11 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether evidence from owners/occupiers is required to prove lack of permission
  3. 3 Whether inference of trespass can be drawn from other evidence

Ratio Decidendi

In prosecutions under s.11 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, the prosecution must prove the accused was present as a trespasser, but it is not necessary to call evidence from the owner or occupier in every case. The court may infer trespass from the circumstances and conduct of the accused. In this case, the evidence provided by the arresting garda was sufficient to prove absence of permission and intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; District Court conviction affirmed.

Orders

  • High Court answers to case stated: (i) Yes, (ii) No, (iii) Yes, (iv) No, (v) Yes.