DPP v Quinn

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeSheehan J.
Judgment Date18 December 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] IECA 308
Docket Number[Appeal No. 88/14]
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)
Date18 December 2015

[2015] IECA 308

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Sheehan J.

[Appeal No. 88/14]

Sheehan J.

Mahon J.

Edwards J.

BETWEEN
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
RESPONDENT
AND
BRIAN QUINN
APPELLANT

Conviction — Causing serious harm — Self-defence — Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction and sentence — Whether trial judge misdirected the jury

Facts: The appellant, Mr Quinn, his partner and their three children lived at 10, Deerpark Avenue, Tallaght, Dublin, which was beside the home of the Toner family. Both families were members of the Circle Housing Association which had been notified by Mr Toner of his intention to hold a birthday party on the evening of the 8th October 2011. The appellant and his partner had previously complained about late night noise from the Toner home. The party concluded at about 4.00am and a Mr Harte was leaving with his cousin, Mr Ryan. They were being accompanied on their way out by Mr Toner and a Ms Hawkins. According to Mr Harte, the appellant and his partner were standing outside their home at the adjoining wall with glasses in their hands. The appellant’s partner started to verbally abuse the Toner family. This resulted in a verbal altercation which continued until a glass was thrown at the Toners and the verbal altercation that was taking place developed into a physical altercation in which the appellant allegedly pulled or dragged Mr Harte into his home and stabbed him there causing him serious injury. In the course of a further physical altercation, the appellant allegedly stabbed four other people who went to Mr Harte’s assistance. The appellant alleged that his partner was outside her home on her own having a cigarette and drinking a glass of water when Mr Harte and Mr Ryan were leaving. She said that this group of people, which included Mr Toner and Ms Hawkins, started to verbally abuse her. She said this abuse was quickly followed by a physical attack on her by Mr Ryan as he pushed her towards her home. She also alleged that Mr Ryan had exposed himself to her in a demeaning and provocative manner. She said that the appellant, in trying to pull her into her home, was set upon by the complainants who had illegally entered his home. The appellant maintained that any force used by him was to repel the invasion of his home and to repel the attack on himself and his wife, and that in those circumstances, whatever defence he used was lawful in the circumstances, as he perceived them to be. It was part of the defence case that prior to any stabbing the appellant had been hit over the head with a baseball bat. On the 21st November 2013, following a trial before the Dublin Circuit Court, the appellant was convicted of causing serious harm to Mr Harte contrary to s. 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and sentenced to eight years imprisonment in respect of that offence. The appellant was convicted of assault causing harm to Mr Lennon and Mr Toner and sentenced to four years imprisonment. The appellant was also convicted of the production of an article capable of inflicting serious injury, to wit, a knife, and sentenced to four years imprisonment. The sentences were concurrent. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against both conviction and sentence. His principal grounds of appeal related to the trial judge’s failure to charge the jury adequately on the question of self-defence and the refusal to give an accomplice warning.

Held by Sheehan J that the jury may have been confused as to the precise test to be applied in considering the defence of self-defence pursuant to the 1997 Act and that the trial judge ought to have brought these matters to the attention of the jury in a more pronounced manner when addressing the defence case in the course of her charge. Sheehan J stated that while the Court held that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing to give an accomplice warning, the trial judge ought to have directed the jury to take particular care in assessing the reliability of those witnesses who conceded in the course of cross-examination that they may have been liable to prosecution for other offences.

Sheehan J held that the appeal against conviction be allowed and accordingly directed a retrial.

Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Sheehan J. on the 18th day of December 2015
[1] Introduction
1.1

On the 21st November 2013, following a twelve-day trial before the Dublin Circuit Court, the appellant was convicted on four of the seven counts on the indictment.

1.2

On Count 3 the appellant was found guilty by unanimous verdict of causing serious harm to Lee Harte on the 9th October 2011 contrary to s. 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and sentenced to eight years imprisonment in respect of that offence. In respect of Count 4, the appellant was found guilty by unanimous verdict of assault causing harm to Curtis Lennon and in respect of Count 5 the appellant was found guilty of assault causing harm to James Toner Jnr by majority verdict and sentenced to four years imprisonment to run concurrent with the sentence on Count 3. The appellant was also convicted on Count 7, namely, the production of an article capable of inflicting serious injury, to wit, a knife, by a majority verdict and sentenced to four years imprisonment concurrent with Count 3.

1.3

The appellant was acquitted in respect of two counts of assault causing serious harm and also another count of assault causing harm.

1.4

The appellant has appealed against both conviction and sentence however this judgment is concerned solely with the appellant's appeal against conviction.

[2] Overview
2.1

In the Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant on the 12th February 2015, nine grounds of appeal against conviction were set out as follows:

1. In all the circumstances, the trial was unsatisfactory and the verdicts are unsafe, in particular, having regard to the various applications, submissions and requisitions made on behalf of the appellant and the adverse rulings made by the trial judge in respect of same.

2. The trial judge erred in fact and in law in refusing to adjourn the trial to permit full disclosure to be made, and the trial was unsatisfactory and the verdicts are unsafe having regard to the fact that adequate disclosure was not made to the defence, including in respect of the PULSE records in respect of relevant incidents occurring at or reported from the appellant's home or his neighbour's home.

3. The trial judge erred in fact and in law in making various rulings as to the evidence heard by the jury including:

a. By restricting the defence cross-examination of Lee Harte.

b. By permitting the statement of Robert Ryan to be read back to him and subsequently failing to give an adequate direction regarding the weight to be attached to his evidence.

c. By refusing to direct the witness, Sharon Joyce, to refrain from describing the appellant's face as ‘evil’.

d. By permitting the prosecution to call ‘rebuttal evidence’ arising from the evidence of good character called on behalf of the appellant, that five of the six complainants did not have previous convictions.

4. The trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately as to the law to be applied to the question of whether the force used by the appellant might have been lawful, including, in particular, in circumstances where such force may have been used inside the appellant's dwelling against persons who may have been believed by the appellant to have entered that dwelling unlawfully in order to commit the criminal offence. Further, the question subsequently raised by the jury was not adequately addressed.

5. The trial judge erred in fact and in law in failing to direct the jury adequately as to the burden and standard of proof, including, in particular as to the law applicable to the assessment of:

a. Inferences favourable to the defence or the prosecution.

b. Inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

c. The relevance of alcohol consumption by witnesses.

6. The trial judge erred in fact and in law in failing to direct the jury adequately as to the law applicable to the assessment of the evidence of accomplices or otherwise to give appropriate warnings as to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who might have been charged with criminal offences arising from the conduct and circumstances grounding the prosecution of the appellant.

7. The trial judge erred in fact and in law in failing to direct the jury adequately as to the law applicable to the assessment of the evidence of expert witnesses.

8. The trial judge erred in fact and in law in failing to direct the jury adequately as to the relevant evidence to the extent that the defence case was not adequately put.

9. Having regard to all the circumstances relating to the trial judge's charge to the jury, the trial was unsatisfactory and the verdict is unsafe.

2.2

In the course of comprehensive written submissions filed on the 6th July 2015, the appellant indicated that he was not pursuing the ground of appeal relating to the failure to adjourn the trial. Towards the end of the oral hearing of this appeal, grounds (2) and (7) were also withdrawn.

2.3

When this appeal came on for hearing, counsel for the appellant informed the Court that his principal grounds of appeal related to the trial judge's failure to charge the jury adequately on the question of self-defence and the refusal to give an accomplice warning. In considering these grounds of appeal, it is necessary to set out the background to the offences.

[3] Background
3.1

The prosecution case was that on the evening of the 8th October 2011, going into the early morning of the 9th October 2011, an eighteenth birthday party had been taking place at 6, Deerpark Avenue, Tallaght, Dublin. It was James Toner Jnr.'s birthday and he lived at this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • DPP v O'Reilly
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 20 March 2017
    ...that the circumstances of this case are readily distinguishable from those in The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Quinn [2015] IECA 308, where we indicated, obiter dictum, that a warning in less strident terms than the conventional accomplice warning might have sufficed in the ci......
  • Director of Public Prosecutions v Crawford
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 31 March 2023
    ...– The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Higgins [2015] IECA 200; The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Quinn [2015] IECA 308; The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. O'Brien [2016] IECA 146; The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Brannigan [2017] IECA 72......
  • DPP v O'Brien
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 12 May 2016
    ...(unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 30th of July 2004); and most recently The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Quinn [2015] IECA 308 (unreported, Court of Appeal, 18th of December, 2015). 19 It is clear from s. 18 of the Act of 1997, as confirmed by this Court and its predecess......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT