McMahon, R v [2017] NICA 58 (5 October 2017)

McMahon, R v [2017] NICA 58 (5 October 2017)

The trial judge was correct to admit the bad character evidence as the previous convictions were sufficiently similar to establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged, and the direction to the jury, though not perfectly worded, did not render the conviction unsafe. None of the grounds of appeal,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NICA 58
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Applicant: Darren Joseph McMahon
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
05 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Propensity, Jury Directions, Extension of Time, Rape, Credibility, Untruthfulness
Criminal Law Evidence Bad Character Evidence Propensity Jury Directions Extension of Time Rape Credibility +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Darren Joseph McMahon

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting bad character evidence to establish propensity to commit offences of the kind charged
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude bad character evidence under relevant statutory provisions
  3. 3 Whether the jury direction on propensity to lie was erroneous and unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to admit the bad character evidence as the previous convictions were sufficiently similar to establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged, and the direction to the jury, though not perfectly worded, did not render the conviction unsafe. None of the grounds of appeal, individually or cumulatively, undermined the safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal conviction refused