DPP v McDonnell
 IECA 34
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
208/2013 - Ryan Birmingham Sheehan - Court of Appeal - 11/12/2014 - 2014 16 4474 2014 IECA 34
NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S4
NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S49
NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S3
Crime & sentencing – Sentence – Severity – Appeal against sentence for assault
Judgment of the Court delivered on the 29th day of October, 2014 by Mr. Justice John MacMenamin.
1. The applicant seeks an order pursuant to s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 ("the 1924 Act"), as amended by the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006, seeking a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on a point of law.
2. S.29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, as substituted by s.22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 provides as follows:
(1) Subject to subsection (9A) of this section, no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from a determination by the Court of Criminal Appeal of any appeal or other matter except in accordance with this section.
(2) A person the subject of an appeal or other matter determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal may appeal the decision of that Court to the Supreme Court if that Court or the Attorney General in any case or, if he or she is the prosecuting authority in the matter, the Director of Public Prosecutions certifies that the decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that the person should take an appeal to the Supreme Court.
3. The three points in question are said to be:
1. Where a defence of alibi has been raised and the evidential burden satisfied, should the trial judge instruct the jury on the relationship between the alibi defence and the burden of proof to the effect that there is no onus on the Accused to establish he was not present? In which case, is the onus on the prosecution to prove that the Accused was present thus disproving the defence of alibi?
2. Where a defence of alibi has been raised and the evidential burden satisfied, should the trial judge charge the jury that before proceeding to convict the accused, the prosecution is required to demonstrate that the alibis were not telling the truth and to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alibis ought to be disbelieved?
3. In cases where the prosecution relies on identification/recognition evidence and a defence of alibi has been raised and the evidential burden satisfied, should the jury be charged to the effect that where the jury rejects the alibi defence that such rejection does not lend support to the recognition/identification evidence upon which the prosecution is based?
4. On the 30 th July 2012, the applicant herein was sentenced to eight years imprisonment having been found guilty of the offence of assault causing harm contrary to s. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 and the offence of intentionally or recklessly causing serious harm contrary to s.4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997. The applicant was convicted of a vicious attack on his former partner who identified him as the assailant.
5. The Applicant appealed his conviction to this Court on the basis of two alleged errors on the part of the trial judge. First, it was urged on his behalf, that the trial judge had erred in failing to charge the jury to the effect that the burden of disproving the defence of alibi lay at all times with the prosecution. Second, the applicant argued that the trial judge erred in rejecting the application for a direction of 'not guilty' at the close of the prosecution case due to the allegedly weak nature of the identification evidence and the fact that the prosecution case rested solely on same.
6. This Court rejected the appeal in an ex tempore judgment delivered on the 10 th March, 2014. With regard to the first ground of appeal, the Court was satisfied that the trial judge's exposition of the law was correct. The trial judge emphasised that there was no onus on the accused to disprove the prosecution case, but rather at all times the onus of proof lay on the prosecution to prove its case. This Court concluded that the judge made this clear to the jury, clearly, emphatically and repeatedly.
7. In relation to the second ground of appeal, the Court pointed out that the identification evidence was, in fact, recognition evidence. The victim knew the applicant and recognised him. This was not, therefore, identification of some unknown person. Further to this, the Court was satisfied that the visibility conditions at the time of the incident, and the fact that the victim had two sightings of her assailant, rendered it safe to leave such evidence to the jury.
8. In People (Attorney General) v Curran (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported 19th February, 2013) O'Donnell J., speaking for the Court, laid emphasis on the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL