Andrews v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Kearns J.
• Judgment Date: 09 June 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IECCA 87
• Date: 09 June 2008
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal

[2008] IECCA 87

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Kearns J.

Budd J.

Hanna J.

[Record No. 188/2008]

Andrews v DPP

BETWEEN

DAVID ANDREWS

APPLICANT

V

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

DPP v CRONIN 2006 2 ILRM 401 2006 IESC 9

WILLOUGHBY v PEOPLE (DPP) UNREP CCA 18.2.2005 2005/58/12223 2005 IECCA 4

AG, PEOPLE v MARSHALL 1956 IR 79

CRIMINAL LAW

Evidence

New or additional evidence on appeal - Ground of appeal not raised at trial - Invalidity of certificate forming technical aspect of proofs - Whether new challenge relates to substance of offence or technical aspect of proofs - People (DPP) v Cronin [2006] IESC 9, [2006] 4 I.R. 329 and People (DPP) v Willoughby [2005] IECCA 4, (Unrep, CCA, 18/2/2005) applied; People v Attorney General [1956] 1 I.R. 79 distinguished - Severity of sentence - Whether fine imposed excessive - Application for leave to produce additional evidence refused; fine reduced from €30,000 to €5,000 (188/2008 - CCA - 9/6/2008) [2008] IECCA 87

People (DPP) v Andrews

1 9th day of June, 2008 by Kearns J.

Kearns J.

2 The Court is satisfied that the leave application in this case, including the application to produce additional evidence, should be refused.

3 Effectively the application is one being brought on behalf of the applicant to reverse his plea of guilty in the court below. Essentially the case is mounted on the basis that in some other case concerning some other prosecution arising out of similar facts, where video and DVD material were seized in some other premises in Dublin, a witness who had provided a certificate forming part of the proofs admitted that although she had inspected the register which showed that the particular item, the subject matter of the count, was not on the register as having been certified, she admitted she had not seen the particular work, the subject matter of the named video. On that basis no conviction was recorded in that other case and the prosecution case failed because this particular technicality was successfully argued.

4 The law in this respect in this jurisdiction could not be clearer in that it imposes an onus on a defendant to bring forward all points of defence at the time a trial takes place. They can not be held "in reserve", so to speak, for an appeal and only brought forward at that stage. This point was made very...