R v Gorrie

JurisdictionIreland
CourtCentral Criminal Court (Ireland)
Date1919
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
4 cases
  • K.M. v DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1994
    ......District Justice CliffordDLRM [1981] I.L.R.M. 17. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Rock (Unreported, Supreme Court, 18th March, 1993). R. v. GorrieUNK (1919) 83 J.P. 136. The People (Attorney General) v. Mills (1955) Frewen 123. The State (Foley) v. CarrollIR [1980] I.R. 150. The State (Healy) v. DonoghueIR [1976] I.R. 325. The State (O'Callaghan) v. O'hUadhaighIR [1977] I.R. 42. Judicial review ......
  • J. M. (A Minor) v Runeckles
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • R v T
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 29 April 2009
    ...9 More recently, where the question of whether a child was doli incapax has arisen, the courts have put a gloss on this test. Thus, in R v Gorrie (1918) 83 JP 136 Salter J directed the jury that the prosecution had to satisfy them that when the boy who was accused committed the act charged ......
  • RP(Appellant) v The Queen
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 21 December 2016
    ....... 4 C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] AC 1 at 38; BP v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 172 at [27]–[28]. . 5 R v Gorrie (1918) 83 JP 136 ; C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] AC 1 at 38; Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice , (1993), vol 1 at 52 [1–96]. . 6 R v Smith (Sidney) (1845) 1 Cox CC 260 per Erle J; C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] AC 1 at 38; BP ......
4 books & journal articles
  • Unfitness to Plead and the Overlap with Doli Incapax: An Examination of the Law Commission's Proposals for a New Capacity Test
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 75-5, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    ...by A. M. Pritchard (1961) 420.17 Ibid. at 419.18 See n. 6.19 Increased to 10 by statute, see above n. 9.20 (1830) 4 C & P 236.21 (1919) 83 JP 136.22 As opposed to naughty or mischievous: JM (A Minor) vRuneckles (1984) 79 Cr AppR 255.23 (1845) 1 Cox CC 265.24 R v Gorrie (1919) 83 JP 136;......
  • Das Strafmündigkeitsalter in Irland: Ist die Zeit nun reif für eine Reform?
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review Nbr. XVIII-2015, January 2015
    • 1 January 2015
    ...des Dritten Teils vom Titel V AEUV im Moment leider nicht beteiligt. Der Richtlinienentwurf basiert auf dem Artikel 82 II 40 R v Gorrie (1918) 83 JP 136; JM (A Minor) v Runeckles (1984) 79 Cr. App.R. 255; R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20. 253 Trinity College Law Review [vol 18 AEUV (ex-Artikel 31 EUV......
  • The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: A Medico-Legal Perspective
    • United Kingdom
    • Youth Justice Nbr. 13-2, August 2013
    • 1 August 2013
    ...Angliae). New Haven: Yale University Press. CasesGillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402.R v Gorrie (1918) 83 JP 136.R v Smith (1845) 1 Cox CC 260 Erle Author biographyDr Enys Delmage is a consultant in adolescent forensic psychiatry at St. Andrew’s Heal......
  • No Defence of Doli Incapax
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 73-4, August 2009
    • 1 August 2009
    ...of the offence, the child understood that what hewas doing was seriously wrong as opposed to merely naughty or mis-chievous (Rv Gorrie (1918) 83 JP 136; JM (A Minor) v Runeckles (1984) 79Cr App R 255). The prosecution could not rely solely on the evidence ofthe offence itself, however serio......

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