D.P.P.-v- Joseph Fee [2007] IECCA 24 (29 March 2007)

D.P.P.-v- Joseph Fee [2007] IECCA 24 (29 March 2007)

The Court found that the trial court did not hold that mere possession of explosives was sufficient to establish intent under s.3; intent was properly inferred from the applicant's actions and surrounding circumstances. No point of law of exceptional public importance arose from the decision, and the application for a certificate was refused.

Citation
[2007] IECCA 24
Parties
Prosecutor: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Applicant: Joseph Fee
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Certificate for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court Under Section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924
Outcome
Application for certificate for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Explosive Substances Act 1883, Possession of Explosives, Intent to Endanger Life, Leave to Appeal, Certificate of Exceptional Public Importance
Criminal Law Explosive Substances Act 1883 Possession of Explosives Intent to Endanger Life Leave to Appeal Certificate of Exceptional Public Importance

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

Parties

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Joseph Fee

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Certificate for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court Under Section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mere possession of explosives under s.4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 is sufficient to establish intent under s.3 of the same Act
  2. 2 Whether a court sitting without a jury must expressly set out facts and inferences relied upon for conviction under s.3

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the trial court did not hold that mere possession of explosives was sufficient to establish intent under s.3; intent was properly inferred from the applicant's actions and surrounding circumstances. No point of law of exceptional public importance arose from the decision, and the application for a certificate was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for certificate for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Refusal of Section 29 application for certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court