The Gazette 1977

GAZE1TE

DECEMBER 1977

D.P.P. v Farrell — Court of Criminal Appeal (per O'Higgins C.J. with Gannon and D'Arcy JJ.) — Unreported — 29 July 1977.

The fourth and fifth grounds of appeal were concerned with the place of detention under Section 30 (3) of the Act. Under that sub-section, an accused must be detained "in a Garda station, a prison, or some other convenient place". During his first period of detention Farrell had consented to accompany two Gardai in a patrol car for a couple of hours to point out various places to them. The Court of Criminal Appeal accepted the contention that there must be continual detention in a recognized "place". Furthermore, it held that a vehicle was not a convenient place under the sub- section. However, it further held that detention is not ended if, for some understandable reason, a temporary absence of the detainee in the care and custody of the Gardai becomes necessary. The detention continues to be the Garda Station. These grounds of appeal, therefore, also failed. The final ground of appeal concerned the extension of FarrelTs detention after the first twenty-four hours had elapsed. The detention was extended not by a Chief Superintendent as required under Section 30 (3) of the Act but by a Superintendent. Under Section 3 (3) a Superintendent may exercise any power conferred by the Act on a Chief Superintendent provided he is so authorized to do so in writing by the Commissioner. The extension direction served on Farrell stated that the Superintendent had, in fact, been authorized to extend the period. This direction was later exhibited in Court. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that this was not sufficient. There was no evidence that the Commi s s i oner had authorized the Superintendent. The recital in the extension direction had no evidential value whatsoever. The written authorization was not produced in Court nor, indeed, was there even any evidence that the authorization had been made. The Offences Against the State Act must be strictly construed. The power in this case was one not normally given to a Superintendent. No presumptions could, therefore, be made. The second period of detention was, therefore, unlawful. Since all the incriminating statements made by the accused were made during this second period, they ought not to have been admitted and the decision in the State (DJ*J>.) v Madden (unreported — 16 November, 1976,) applies. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 — INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE Extension of 24-hour detention period, under Section 30 of die Offences Against the State Act 1939, by a Superintendent, unlawful, unless evidence produced that Garda Commissioner authorized the Superintendent to so extend detention period. George Farrell was convicted in the Special Criminal Court of causing an explosion contrary to Section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1883. The only evidence connecting him with the explosion was certain verbal and one written statement made by him. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, he contended that these statements ought not to have been admitted. Eleven grounds of appeal were put forward. Grounds 1 to 3 were concerned with his alleged right to be informed of his right to consult a solicitor and his alleged right to a medical examination before he was subjected to interrogation. The Court rejected these first grounds. There was no authority for the proposition that every person under suspicion of or faced with a charge of a criminal offence had a constitutional right to have the services of a solicitor and doctor before being questioned by Gardai. There is a constitutional duty on the Court of trial to be vigilant to ensure that the trial be in all respects fair and just. The various rights of an accused are all related to his particular circumstances. The trial Court had ample evidence in relation to the physical and mental capacity of the appellant and its rulings on the matters raised in these first grounds of appeal were made in the proper exercise of its discretion and were correct. The sixth and seventh grounds of appeal related to the failure by the Gardai to record what was said by the accused after the caution. These grounds were also rejected. The Trial Court has a judicial discretion whether to admit or reject a particular statement. If the Judges rules are breached, each of such breaches calls for adequate explanation. Before exercising its discretion, the Trial Court must consider the breaches, and explanations of them, if any, in the context of the entire circumstances of the case. Here, again, the discretion was properly utilized. 24

Solicitor Grade I

Dublin Corporation

Salaryt £6 , 407 - £7,254. Essential! Admission and enrolment as a Solicitor in the State and three years experience, including experience of Court work. Where appropriate the results of this competition may be used to fill additional vacancies. Application forms etc. from: Secretary, Local Appointments Commission, 1 Lower Grand Canal Straat, Dublin 2.

Closing date: 23rd February, 1978.