Morrin, R v [2011] NICA 14 (23 May 2011)

Morrin, R v [2011] NICA 14 (23 May 2011)

The trial judge's directions, considered as a whole, correctly placed the burden of proof on the prosecution and adequately addressed the defence case regarding an alternative perpetrator. The proposed fresh evidence relating to Sean Devlin's alleged violent conduct, including one conviction, did not meet the statutory threshold for substantial probative value and was inadmissible. The conviction was safe based on strong forensic and circumstantial evidence.

Citation
[2011] NICA 14
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant/appellant: Paul James Morrin
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
23 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application to Admit Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Murder, Circumstantial Evidence, Onus of Proof, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Bad Character Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Circumstantial Evidence Onus of Proof Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Bad Character Evidence

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Paul James Morrin

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application to Admit Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the onus of proof regarding forensic examination of a third party's clothing
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to properly address the possibility of another perpetrator
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence regarding a witness's bad character should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions, considered as a whole, correctly placed the burden of proof on the prosecution and adequately addressed the defence case regarding an alternative perpetrator. The proposed fresh evidence relating to Sean Devlin's alleged violent conduct, including one conviction, did not meet the statutory threshold for substantial probative value and was inadmissible. The conviction was safe based on strong forensic and circumstantial evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld