Cases - Evidence

State v. Treanor [1924] 2 IR 193

The Voir Dire does NOT take place in front of the jury

DPP v Campion

The threshold for competence is low - an ability to understand questions and give intelligible answers on matters relevant to the issues in the trial

R v Barker

Shows that the courts have started to call younger and younger children to the stand (compellability)

• Gave video-recorded evidence at 3 and a half and gave testimony in court at 4 and a half

R v. Day

“Any written thing capable of being evidence is properly described as a document”

DPP v Cunningham

Hostile witnesses - “It is based to a large extent upon a live impression of the witness’s demeanour and credibility.”

(No fixed criteria for determining hostility)

People (AG) v Taylor

The formal procedure for determining a witness as hostile

1. Apply to the judge to have declared a hostile witness.

2. Put the previous statement to the witness.

3. Call the person who took the original statement.

4. Bring the original witness back to the stand

5. If the witness admits the contradiction … Credibility may now be undermined 

6. If the witness persists in denying any inconsistency between the statement and earlier testimony … Statement may be given in evidence

7. If the statement is put in evidence: Should only be used to determine the credibility of the witness and the evidence that they have given.

DPP v Burke

Confirmed that there is no informal or implied process for treating a witness as hostile, thus formal application under Taylor is required.

DPP v O’Brien 

• A young girl alleged that she had been sexually abused 

• She disclosed the abuse to a psychologist and the interview was video-recorded 

• At trial, the girl was unwilling to testify 

• The court allowed the video recording of the interview to be shown to the jury.

DPP v Clifford

Prior permission to bring notes is not required, through the witness may be questioned about them

Lord Talbot - case

The document must have been made at the time of the events or shortly afterwards, while the facts were fresh it the witness’s mine (refreshing memory IN court)

In 9/10 cases, the witness’ memory is not at all refreshed (refreshing memory OUT of court)

R v Graham & R v Fotheringham

There is no fixed time limit, but the court has previously stated that 27 days after the event is too long (R v Graham) but that 22 days afterwords is ok (R v Fotheringham)

(Refreshing memory IN court)

R v Kelsey

The document was made or verified by the witness (Refreshing memory IN court)

R v Chisnell

It does not have to be the original document! Copies are ok! (Refreshing memory IN court)

Lau Pak Ngam

A witness is permitted to read their own notes or the notes made by the police during their police interview. (Refreshing memory OUT of court)

People (DPP) v Donnelly 

A witness must not memorise their previous statements (Refreshing memory OUT of court)

DPP v MT

• The trial was held 5 years after the crime had been committed 

• The child had no remaining memory of the events 

• The court held that cross-examination was effectively pointless since the answers were based on the video, not actual memory 

R v Malicki 

• A 14 month delay 

• The court found it impossible to tell whether the witness remembered the events or merely the recording 

Thomas v. David

Collateral questions - exceptions (BIAS)

• Are you having an affair with one of the parties in this case? If the answer was yes that she would be biased. 

Gertz v Fitchburg 

Collateral questions - exceptions (Previous convictions)

• If a person lies about having a previous conviction

Toohey - case 

• Collateral questions - exceptions (A witness’ physical or mental disability)

  • When a witness due to disease is not capable of giving a true or reliable account to the jury, it must be allowed for the nature of that disease to be revealed. 

Prince v. Samo

The Re-examination must strictly comfy to matters that have arisen in the course of cross-examination or examination-in-chief.

People (AG) v. O’Brien (1964)

Ireland went from adopting the inclusionary rule to adopting the exclusionary rule

• Mr. O’Brien was accused of having committed robbery. A search warrant on his home was issued and the police found incriminating evidence. It was later discovered that the address on the warrant was wrong (Cashel road instead of Captain’s road)

• At the trial, O’Brien argued that the evidence found in his house was obtained unlawfully and should be excluded at trial. (The court agreed)

• The court came up with the test for determine whether a piece of evidence have been unconstitutionally obtained

Byrne v. Ireland

• To deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights/the law when gathering evidence.

  • The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule 

Kennedy and Arnold v. Ireland

Established the right to privacy

People (DPP) v Quirke

Search warrants now have to mention that the police want to search your phone and computer etc

Re O Laighelis

A suspect is entitled to know why they are getting arrested

DPP v Walsh

Detention: Subject must be taken to Gardaí station ASAP and not questioned outside

DPP v Vadden

Detention has a time limit (late confession)

Beuze v Belgium

The right to have a solicitor in the room with you

People (DPP) v. Gormley

Waiving the right tio legal advise must be a free choice (not encouraged etc)

DPP v JC

Added “inadvertence & subsequent legal development”

DPP v Lawless

Flushing the loo over and over

People v Shaw

Need to rescue victim who has missing justified breach of lawful period of detention

DPP v Damache

Emergency search warrants

Freeman v DPP

Extraordinary circumstances (unconstitutional) include the accused being caught in the act

People (AG) v O’Brien

The judge has discretion to exclude illegally obtained evidence

• The O’Brien factors

DPP v McMahan

Entered a commercial premises without warrant → Illegal but not unconstitutional

DPP v Shaw

Unfairly obtained if it falls below the required standard of fairness

DPP v Doherty

Breach of charter → Treated as unconstitutional (supremacy of EU-law)

Dwyer v Commissioner an Garda

Convicted of murder p.g.a phone data → Data obtained in breach of Charter (right to privacy and data protection)

Jalloh v Germany

Stomach pumping

R v M’Naghten

The burden of proof is placed on defence regarding insanity

AG v Boylan

Level of proof (insanity) = Balance of probability

Ryan v. The queen

Insane automatism (internal)

DPP v. Best

Homeschooling

Minister for industry v Steele

Pork sausage

Constantine steamship line

You say it, you prove it (civil-cases)

Limerick & Western Railway Co

Goods damaged during transit (peculiar knowledge - civil)

Murphy v GM

Issue of fundamental fairness (possesses expensive assets without income)

Galvin v Murray

“Expert” = Appropriate qualifications / Expertise

R v Turner

Opinions of human nature / behavior is often inadmissible

Chewinggum - case

Opinion on how a certain group see / interpret something is ok!

DPP v Razman

The ultimate issue rule

The acid bath murderer

Circumstantial evidence

R v Exhall

Circumstantial evidence (rope metaphor)

DPP v Wilson

DNA-evidence alone can sometimes be sufficient for a conviction

People (DPP) voters McCann

The test for threats/positive inducements