R v Doyle (Paul Michael Hugh) [2017] NICA 35 (09 June 2017)

R v Doyle (Paul Michael Hugh) [2017] NICA 35 (09 June 2017)

There was no inaccurate evidence before the jury regarding the mobile phone records, and no issue at trial as to their accuracy. Therefore, there was no basis to admit new evidence or to require a jury direction on potential inaccuracies. None of the matters raised undermined the safety of the conviction, and there was no ground to extend time for leave to appeal.

Citation
[2017] NICA 35
Parties
Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: Paul Michael Hugh Doyle
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
09 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Possession With Intent to Supply, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Possession With Intent to Supply Admissibility of Evidence 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

Paul Michael Hugh Doyle

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence regarding mobile phone records should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on potential inaccuracies in call records

Ratio Decidendi

There was no inaccurate evidence before the jury regarding the mobile phone records, and no issue at trial as to their accuracy. Therefore, there was no basis to admit new evidence or to require a jury direction on potential inaccuracies. None of the matters raised undermined the safety of the conviction, and there was no ground to extend time for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for reception of new evidence refused
  • No extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction