D.P.P.-v- Ronan McGrath [2004] IECCA 11 (27 May 2004)
The trial judge did not err in law by leaving Count No. 2 to the jury as there was evidence from which intention or recklessness could be inferred, and the conduct created a substantial risk of serious harm. The verdicts of acquittal on manslaughter and conviction on endangerment are not inconsistent as the statutory elements differ.
- Citation
- [2004] IECCA 11
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Applicant: Ronan McGrath
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 27 May 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- leave to appeal against conviction refused
- Legal Topics
- Endangerment, Mens Rea, Recklessness, Jury Direction, Statutory Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Director of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutor
Ronan McGrath
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law by failing to withdraw Count No. 2 (endangerment) from the jury
- 2 Whether the verdict of guilty on endangerment and acquittal on manslaughter was inconsistent
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge did not err in law by leaving Count No. 2 to the jury as there was evidence from which intention or recklessness could be inferred, and the conduct created a substantial risk of serious harm. The verdicts of acquittal on manslaughter and conviction on endangerment are not inconsistent as the statutory elements differ.
Court Disposition
leave to appeal against conviction refused
Orders
- application for leave to appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment