Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in answering consultative case stated from the District Court, finds that in a prosecution for criminal damage (graffiti on headstones in a cemetery): 1) the term “property” did not necessarily imply ownership; and 2) it was not necessary that the prosecution tender evidence of ownership or evidence of the costs or value of the damage alleged to have been caused to sustain a conviction.
Criminal law – consultative case stated from the District Court – whether is it necessary that there be a complaint made by an injured party who owns or claims to own the property in question before a valid prosecution can be taken in a criminal damage prosecution – s. 2(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1991 – whether is it necessary that the prosecution tender some evidence that the property in question was owned by another – whether is it necessary for the prosecution to tender evidence of the costs or value of the damage alleged to have been caused – whether the prosecution must adduce evidence of ownership by some party before the presumption arises – meaning of “property” – case stated answered in the negative
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now