Director of Public Prosecutions -v- T.E. [2015] IECA 218 (30 July 2015)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- T.E. [2015] IECA 218 (30 July 2015)

The Court held that the complainant's evidence, despite inconsistencies, was sufficient for the jury to consider and did not require withdrawal of the case. While the trial judge misdirected the jury on recklessness, this did not create a real risk of injustice given the defence case and absence of requisition. The appellant was precluded from raising new points on appeal not raised at trial, and no fundamental injustice was found. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] IECA 218
Parties
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Appellant: T. E.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Recklessness, Jury Directions, Corroboration, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Rape Consent Recklessness Jury Directions Corroboration Appeal 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

T. E.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in not withdrawing the case from the jury due to the complainant's evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the law of recklessness and knowledge regarding consent
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding corroboration and distress evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the complainant's evidence, despite inconsistencies, was sufficient for the jury to consider and did not require withdrawal of the case. While the trial judge misdirected the jury on recklessness, this did not create a real risk of injustice given the defence case and absence of requisition. The appellant was precluded from raising new points on appeal not raised at trial, and no fundamental injustice was found. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed