DPP v Kinsella
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESCDET 157 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 01 July 2019 |
[2019] IESCDET 157
An Chúirt Uachtarach
The Supreme Court
DETERMINATION
O'Donnell J.
Charleton J.
O'Malley J.
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: Court of Appeal |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 23 rd October, 2018 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 23 rd October, 2018 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDERS: 31 st January, 2019 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 8 th February, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME. |
This determination concerns a decision of the Court of Appeal made on 23 October 2018; [2018] IECA 332. The applicant Wayne Kinsella was found guilty on 21 May 2012 by a jury of the murder of Adil Essalhi on 6 January 2011 in the Tyrrelstown area of Dublin.
The key aspect of the case which is sought to be appealed concerns corroboration. For some reason, which is not clear to the Court, the prosecution and the defence counsel agreed that a corroboration warning should be given not in respect of persons who were participants in the crime or who would in any way, it seems, assisted in ensuring the escape of those who had committed the crime but who were instead civilian witnesses. The question over whether evidence which was raised by the accused concerned the possibility that they collaborated with each other in order to either invent his involvement in the crime or to exaggerate his involvement in the crime in order to assist another person, who happened to be, it seems, a nephew of the accused. The corroboration warning applies to accomplices. If there was any issue as to collusion and that was a matter which could be properly explored in evidence without the necessity of adding a corroboration warning and the concomitant complication in the judge”s charge that might arise.
The circumstances of the commission of the offence were such that the victim was suspected by the accused, due to a misapprehension, of having been involved in the murder of another individual who was his brother. In a remark made at the Garda station the accused admitted having been present at the scene of the murder but denied participating in that murder in any way. In the submissions, the prosecution point out that something being corroboration is not made into something that is not corroboration by reason of the fact that an accused person admits a fact to a policeman.
As recounted in the judgement of the Court of Appeal, the body of the victim was found in consequence of information provided by the accused. The accused, the victim, and another person went to a party on the night in question. The three of them then left and was seen on CCTV camera proceeding in the direction where the body of the victim was later found. Within a short space of time, the accused and the other man returned. The victim met his death in the fields which was near to the place where the party was taking place due to an attack with a knife and, from the forensic evidence, from slashing wounds consistent with an attack by a machete.
If prosecution and defence counsel agree to a particular course of action that is, of course, of assistance to the conduct of the trial. If, however, there is a departure from general rules so that witnesses who are not classified within the category where an...
To continue reading
Request your trial