DPP -v- Carlos Byrne [2011] IECCA 105 (13 December 2011)

DPP -v- Carlos Byrne [2011] IECCA 105 (13 December 2011)

The Court held that section 6(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1997 does not require an attempt at peaceable entry in every operational context, and the Gardaí had reasonable cause to suspect the appellant would abscond. Forced entry was justified by operational needs and the circumstances. The trial judge was entitled to admit the alleged verbal admission as evidence, having resolved credibility issues in favour of the prosecution.

Citation
[2011] IECCA 105
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Carlos Byrne
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Lawful Arrest, Forced Entry, Admissibility of Evidence, Constitutional Rights, Section 6 Criminal Law Act 1997
Criminal Law Lawful Arrest Forced Entry Admissibility of Evidence Constitutional Rights Section 6 Criminal Law Act 1997

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Carlos Byrne

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's arrest was lawful under section 6(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether forced entry without attempting peaceable entry invalidated the arrest
  3. 3 Whether the alleged verbal admission was properly admitted into evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that section 6(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1997 does not require an attempt at peaceable entry in every operational context, and the Gardaí had reasonable cause to suspect the appellant would abscond. Forced entry was justified by operational needs and the circumstances. The trial judge was entitled to admit the alleged verbal admission as evidence, having resolved credibility issues in favour of the prosecution.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • leave to appeal against conviction refused