DPP v Kinsella

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham J.
• Judgment Date: 21 October 2002
• Neutral Citation: 2003 WJSC-CCA 3852
• Docket Number: 80/02
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 21 October 2002

DPP v. KINSELLA

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

And

MARTIN KINSELLA

Applicant/Appellant

2003 WJSC-CCA 3852

80/02

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Abstract:

Criminal law - Bail - Appeal against conviction - Whether applicant met legal requirements for bail pending appeal against conviction - Whether strong chance of success on appeal

Facts: The applicant applied to be admitted to bail pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal against conviction. The applicant was appealing his conviction for drugs offences on grounds, inter alia, that the trial judge failed to properly charge the jury.

Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal in dismissing the application for bail that the applicant did not meet the legal requirements for bail pending appeal. The law was that bail could only be granted where, without having to consider the entire transcript, some definite or discrete ground of appeal could be identified and isolated and was of such a nature that there was a strong chance of success on appeal.

Reporter: R. W.

Citations:

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977

DPP V CORBALLY 2001 2 ILRM 102

DPP V QUINN UNREP CCA 15.2.2001 2001/8/2126

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S15

1 21st October,2002by Denham J.

2 1. This is an application by the applicant/appellant, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, to be admitted to bail pending the determination of an application for leave to appeal againstconviction.

3 2. The applicant is appealing his conviction from Dublin Circuit Court in respect of drug offences, which conviction and sentence was imposed on 11th April, 2002. The relevant grounds of appeal are:-

4 2 "1. The Learned Trial Judge failed to direct the Jury properly in his charge to the Jury, on the issue of rebuttable presumption under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, in relation to the charge of possessing a controlled drug for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying it to another.

5 2. The Learned Trial Judge failed to direct the Jury properly in his charge to the Jury, on the implication on a finding of guilt on the charge of possessing the said quantity of a controlled drug with respect thereon to their deliberations on the charge of possessing a controlled drug for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying it toanother.

6 3. The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in his failure to accept the original verdict of the Jury, and in directing them on mutually inconsistent...