The Gazette 1975

Recent Irish Cases The Court of Criminal Appeal has been properly established in accordance with the Constitution As a preliminary issue, it was contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal had not been established in accordance with the Constitution. The Chief Justice, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Court, stat- ed that Article 34 of the Constitution gave authority to the Oireachtas to establish and to disestablish such Courts as it may think fit, subject to the constitutional powers of the High Court and of the Supreme Court not being infringed. Accordingly the Court of Criminal Appeal had been validly established. As the Judges who sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal are Judges appointed in the manner provided by the Constitution, they need not be specifically appointed Judges of that Court. The jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Ap- peal to give leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether by that Court or by the Attorney-General, is a jurisdiction circumscribed by statute. The preliminary issue is consequently dismissed. The People (A.G. v Conmey, (No. 1) — Supreme Court (O'Higgins, C.J., Walsh, Budd, Grif- fin and Doyle, JJ.)—Judgment of the Chief Justice—un- reported—31st July, 1975. Appeals may be taken directly to the Supreme Court from the Central Criminal Court Th e Supreme Court has ruled that appeals may be taken direct to that court from the Central Criminal Oourt. Chief Justice O'Higgins said that the Supreme Court was given by the Constitution full appellate jurisdiction over all determinations and decisions of the Central Criminal Court and this in- cluded a jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal from a verdict of not guilty. The Court was giving its reasons for a decision an- nounced last July in which it held that the Court of Criminal Appeal was validly extablished, an issue which had been raised during the hearing of a motion brought by Martin Conmey seeking an order extending the time for the lodging and service of a notice of appeal against a conviction for the manslaughter of Miss U n a Lynskey. He had been convicted in the Central Criminal Court in July, 1972, by Henchy, J., and sentenced to three years' penal servitude. Sub- sequently the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his appeal on 31 July, 1973. Chief Justice O'Higgins, in his judgment, said that in his opinion the Supreme Court was given, by Article 34 (4) (3) of the Constitution, full appellate jurisdiction over all determinations and decisions of the Central Criminal Court and this in- cluded a jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal from a verdict of not guilty, as the High Court, exercis- ing Criminal Jurisdiction must consist of a Judge and a jury.

The effect of the statutory provisions was to provide a choice for a person convicted in the Central Criminal Court either to avail of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court or to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. If a such a person appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, that was the end of the matter, unless he ob- tained a certificate under Section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 from that Court or from the Attorney- General. But the Constitution only confers on the Supreme Court an exclusive appeal jurisdiction which cannot be dismissed. Appeal Dismissed by Court of Criminal Appeal Mr. Justice Walsh, in his judgment, said that at a trial in June, 1972, in the Central Criminal Court, Martin Conmey was tried for murder On 15 July, he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of man- sloughter and sentenced to three years' penal servitude. His appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was dis- missed, and in October, 1974, his solicitor served a notion of motion to the Supreme Court which purported to be in the nature of an appeal to that Court in respect of the proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal and in respect of the conviction and order made in the Central Criminal Court. He had not sought permis- sion from that Court to appeal, and consequently that appeal was unsustainable. Th e only ground of appeal which arose for consider- ation in the case was the ground which sought an appeal against the conviction and order of the Central Criminal Court. The case had been mainly concerned with whether such an appeal lay to the Supreme Court or not. As the Notice of Motion was brought more than two years after conviction, the leave of the Supreme Court to bring an appeal had first to be obtained, and an application was made to the Court for an order enlarging the time. The Court decided to hear the arguments and submissions on the question of whether an appeal lay to the Supreme Court in respect of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Central Crim- inal Court before deciding whether or not to extend the time. Important issue of Constitutional Law The case, he said, raised an important issue of Con- stitutional Law and the submissions to the Court had ranged over a very wide field, including the question of whether there was any distinction in principle be- tween an acquittal and a conviction so far as the question of appeal to the Supreme Court lay. Mr. Justice Wa l sh said that Section 2 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, provided that the High Court, exercising its criminal jurisdiction, should be known as the Central Criminal Court. There could, therefore, be no doubt that the Court which tried the appellant was the High Court, duly establish- ed—by the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961. Article 34 (4 (3) of the Constitution provided that . 2 6 6