What are OHalloran and Valentine cases/judgements.

ScouseMouse

Hiya all.

I was listening to a case recently and there were lots of references to O'Halloran and Valentine judgements. This is relevant and that is relevant....

Is there somewhere I can read about this or are they people?

I think the matter being discussed was about someone sitting there saying something without any paperwork backup. It was suggested it was only hearsay.

Thanks all.

Procrastastudy

I don't know but possibly;

http://sim.law.uu.nl/sim/caselaw/Hof.nsf/d0cd2c2c444d8d94c12567c2002de990/b85f622f60bd3eccc1257309003561f8?OpenDocument

dermot_sheehan

Dpp v. Eddie Valentine states that as a fundamental proof in a theft case, where the victim is a corporation, you have to prove the existance of that corporate victim.

It doesn't mean having the certificate of incorporation in court, it means a witness for the victim would have to say for example, I am a store manager for Tesco Ireland Limited, the property taken was owned by tesco ireland limited, the defendant did not have permission to take the aforesaid property, and tesco ireland limited is a company that exists.


DPP v. Valentine states that if the last bit, evidence that the victim exists, isn't giving, there needs to be an acquittal since you have to prove the existence of the victime.

dermot_sheehan

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/abe862243218be6c802573540031178c?OpenDocument

ScouseMouse

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/abe862243218be6c802573540031178c?OpenDocument

Yep, that makes perfect sense. Does anyone know about the O'Halloran case. Must be something VERY similar.

Cheers guys