D.P.P.-v- Daniel Goulding [2010] IECCA 85 (29 July 2010)

D.P.P.-v- Daniel Goulding [2010] IECCA 85 (29 July 2010)

There was sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the applicant's proximity to the drugs, for the jury to properly consider the issue of possession. The trial judge was correct to leave the case to the jury, as the evidence was not so tenuous as to require withdrawal. The directions on aiding and abetting were appropriate and correctly stated the law.

Citation
[2010] IECCA 85
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: The People (at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions); Defendant/applicant: Daniel Goulding
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
leave to appeal against conviction refused; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession of Controlled Drugs, Aiding and Abetting, Standard of Proof, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Possession of Controlled Drugs Aiding and Abetting Standard of Proof Jury Directions

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The People (at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Prosecutor/respondent

Daniel Goulding

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law by not withdrawing the case from the jury due to alleged insufficiency of evidence regarding possession of drugs
  2. 2 Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove possession or control by the applicant beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge properly directed the jury on aiding and abetting

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the applicant's proximity to the drugs, for the jury to properly consider the issue of possession. The trial judge was correct to leave the case to the jury, as the evidence was not so tenuous as to require withdrawal. The directions on aiding and abetting were appropriate and correctly stated the law.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal against conviction refused; appeal dismissed