DPP v Cronin
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Date | 2006 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
46 cases
-
DPP v M.K.
...... verdict unsatisfactory - Corroboration warning - Definition of corroboration - Evidence constituting corroboration - People (DPP) v Coddington (Unrep, CCA, 31/5/2001) and People (DPP) v Gavin [2004] 4 IR 556 distinguished, People (Attorney General) v Byrne [1974] IR 1 , People (DPP) v Cronin (Unrep, CCA, 16/5/2003), People (DPP) v Reid [1993] 2 IR 186 and People (DPP) v J (P) [2003] 3 IR 550 followed - Juries Act 1976 (No. 4), s 25 - Appeal allowed and convictions quashed - (214/2000 - Court of Criminal Appeal - 19/7/2005) [2005] IE CCA 93 CRIMINAL LAW Jury ......
-
DPP v Anthony McCarthy and Others
...on the part of the applicants and as 'the very kind of mischief which the decision of the Supreme Court in People(DPP) v Cronin [2006] 2 ILRM 401 was designed to prevent'. Mr Burns argued that if a point was ever to be taken about the adequacy of disclosure, there was an obligation on the ......
-
DPP v O'Carroll
......However, it was accepted by counsel on behalf of the applicant that the ground relating to provocation was not arguable having regard to the decision of DPP v Mark Cronin, CCA unreported, 16 May, 2003. The applicant did not give evidence at his trial. However, the prosecution proved as part of their case certain statements made by him to the gardai. From those statements it appeared that the deceased man had produced the knife and that the two men wrestled ......
-
DPP v Michael Fahy
...... . 30 The effect of the introduction of inadmissible evidence will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. One relevant factor is whether an objection is raised at the time: People (D.P.P.) v Cronin [2003] 3 I.R. 377 at 390-2. In the case of a trial by jury it may be possible for the trial judge to cure any prejudice arising by giving appropriate directions to the jury. If, however, the evidence is so prejudicial that it creates a real and substantial risk of an unfair trial which cannot ......
Request a trial to view additional results