Director of Public Prosecutions -v- M.L. [2015] IECA 82 (27 April 2015)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- M.L. [2015] IECA 82 (27 April 2015)

Although the trial judge's corroboration warning was inadequate and failed to identify specific evidence capable of corroboration, the deficiencies operated to the benefit of the appellant and did not render the conviction unsafe. The trial judge adequately put the defence case to the jury and dealt sufficiently with the prejudicial remarks. There was no obligation to give the specific jury direction sought by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] IECA 82
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Appellant: M. L.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Jury Directions, Corroboration Warning, Credibility of Witnesses, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Jury Directions Corroboration Warning Credibility of Witnesses Appeals Procedure

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

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

M. L.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to give a clear and distinct corroboration warning to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to adequately put the defence case regarding issues of credibility to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to discharge the jury following prejudicial remarks by prosecution counsel

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trial judge's corroboration warning was inadequate and failed to identify specific evidence capable of corroboration, the deficiencies operated to the benefit of the appellant and did not render the conviction unsafe. The trial judge adequately put the defence case to the jury and dealt sufficiently with the prejudicial remarks. There was no obligation to give the specific jury direction sought by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed