Director of Public Prosecutions v P.K. (Approved) [2020] IECA 94 (08 April 2020)

Director of Public Prosecutions v P.K. (Approved) [2020] IECA 94 (08 April 2020)

The trial judge materially misdirected the jury by suggesting that the consistency of the complainant could be supportive or corroborative of the prosecution case, which could have led the jury to convict in circumstances where they would not otherwise have done so. This misdirection was sufficient to warrant allowing the appeal against conviction, notwithstanding the absence of a requisition at trial.

Citation
[2020] IECA 94
Parties
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Appellant: P. K.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Assault, Corroboration, Admissibility of Evidence, Fair Trial, Jury Directions, Pre Trial Publicity
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Assault Corroboration Admissibility of Evidence Fair Trial Jury Directions Pre Trial Publicity

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

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

P. K.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to postpone the trial due to adverse publicity
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in directions regarding corroboration and evidence of recent complaint
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the appellant's interviews into evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge materially misdirected the jury by suggesting that the consistency of the complainant could be supportive or corroborative of the prosecution case, which could have led the jury to convict in circumstances where they would not otherwise have done so. This misdirection was sufficient to warrant allowing the appeal against conviction, notwithstanding the absence of a requisition at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction for rape offences quashed
  • New trial may be ordered at the discretion of the prosecution