People (Attorney-General) v Quinn
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 1965 |
| Date | 18 December 1965 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Self-defence - Onus of proof - Trial - Irregularity - Character of accused not put in issue - Questions put in cross-examination - Observations by judge in charge to jury -Conversation between juryman and accused on a matter relating to the trial - Effect on trial.
Q. was convicted of the offence of manslaughter. The evidence showed that he struck the deceased one blow with his fist causing him to fall to the ground and fracture his skull as a result of which he died. Q. sought to justify his action by saying that he struck the blow in self-defence. The trial commenced on Friday, 18th January, 1963, and concluded with a verdict of guilty on the following day. On Tuesday, 22nd January, 1963, the trial Judge sat to pronounce judgment when counsel for Q. informed the trial Judge that on the previous Friday evening, before the prosecution had concluded and after the Court had adjourned to the following morning, a juror, in company with a witness who had just given evidence at the trial, while passing the accused who was standing with his sister in the hall of the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
DPP v Gleeson
...That burden was explained in the context of the justificatory defence of the lawful use of force by Walsh J in The People (AG) v Quinn [1965] IR 366 at 382 thus: When the evidence in a case, whether it be the evidence offered by the prosecution or by the defence, discloses a possible defen......
-
DPP v Casey
...evidence but where the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove its application on the facts; see The People (AG) v Quinn [1965] IR 366 at 382 and The People (DPP) v Gleeson [2018] IESC 53. Defences in criminal law are a matter for assessment, according to their nature and the bu......
-
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Heffernan
...in a criminal trial, as emphasised in McGowan v. Carville [1960] I.R. 330 and The People (at the Suit of the Attorney General) v. Quinn [1965] I.R. 366, is that the prosecution must prove guilt, while the accused is not obliged to prove anything. The prosecution must also disprove most of......
-
DPP v Gilligan (No 2)
...Act of 1924, this Court has all the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal as was demonstrated in The People (Attorney General) v. Quinn [1965] I.R. 366." 36 Henchy J. stated: "... this Court seems to have taken the same view as the House of Lords took under the corresponding statutory pro......
-
In the Irish Courts
...Irish CourtsSUPREMECOURTINEIREA TALKATIVE JURYMAN: THE DEFENCE OF SELF-DEFENCEThe People(A.G.) v. QuinnTHE appellant in this case (1965 I.R. 366) was chargedwiththemanslaughter of one who was stated to be his closefriend.Thetwo men had drinks together in a public house andhad left on amicab......