Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
IECA 175 ECLI:IE:CA:2018:175 Généré par l'IA

Court of Appeal orders retrial after quashing conviction due to missing jury warning.

Numéro de cause IECA 175
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Irlande (IE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial following the quashing of the appellant's conviction. The original judge erred by failing to provide a specific warning to the jury that the prosecution had requested. The court determined that sufficient evidence remained for a jury to resolve the case.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998; where a conviction is quashed due to a failure to give a requested jury warning but evidence remains, a retrial is appropriate.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
Criminal Justice Act 1998 jury warning error retrial order quashed conviction Director of Public Prosecutions

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 199

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

THE COURT OF APPEAL

[270/15]

Birmingham P.

Mahon J.

Edwards J.

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 199

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

v.

ALAN HANLEY

APPELLANT

JUDGMENT(Ex tempore) of the Court delivered on the 11th day of June 2018 by Birmingham P.

1. The Court has heard what is being urged by Mr. Bowman in response to the DPP’s application for a retrial. The Court’s view is that

it is a case where a retrial is appropriate. This was a situation where the conviction has been quashed in circumstances where the

Court concluded that the judge made an error in not providing a particular warning that was sought, but it remains the case that

there was evidence to be considered by the jury and we feel it is a matter that should ultimately be resolved by a jury verdict.

2. The Court will order a retrial.