Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
IECA 175 ECLI:IE:CA:2018:175 Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto IECA 175
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Irlanda (IE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'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.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
Criminal Justice Act 1998 jury warning error retrial order quashed conviction Director of Public Prosecutions

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 199

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

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.