The Gazette 1983

GAZETTE

APRIL 1983

(1) an intention to kill or cause serious injury, and

words of admission were spoken, the Accused had been interviewed by members of the Garda .Siochana for lengthy periods. Certain forensic tests had been carried out on the accused's clothing and during the interviews members of the Garda Siochana informed the Accused of the evidence they had obtained against him. The Gardai asked the accused to comment on the available evidence. This evidence was put to him in detail. He was requested ^that he tell them the truth. Certain forensic evidence had become available and this was also put to the accused. The accused had seen his solicitor on five occasions prior to the time he made the alleged admission. His solicitor advised him to say nothing in answer to the questions he was asked. During the earlier interviews with the Gardai, the accused either remained silent or stated he had been advised by his solicitor to say nothing. The Court of Criminal Appeal stated that they had no doubt — taking into consideration the context in which the words were spoken, that the words used by the accused were an admission that he was involved in the raid and the killing of the Gardai about which he was being questioned. Nature and Extent of Involvement Counsel on behalf of the accused Pringle submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the admission of the accused was an admission of such involvement to make the accused guilty of murder and armed robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not accept this submission. The Court again considered that the context in which the words were spoken was significant and relevant. In reaching its conclusion on the construction of the accused's admission, the Court stated the same conclusion could be reached by examining certain of the evidence against the accused excluding the post arrest interviews. This evidence consisted of certain visual identification, forensic evidence to the effect that fibres from the accused's jumper matched fibres taken from cars involved in the crimes and forensic evidence concerning the presence of firearm residue in jeans worn by the accused. The Court of Criminal Appeal stated that they were conscious of the care that must be taken in relation to identification evidence and referred to The People (A. G.) v. Casey 9 and R. v. Turnbull 10 . The Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied that the Special Criminal Court was correct in deciding that the admission was an admission by the accused that he took part in the raid and was in the getaway car. "Questioning of an objectionable and oppressive nature" The Court of Criminal Appeal then considered whether the Special Criminal Court was correct in allowing the admission in evidence. It was submitted that the accused Pringle had been subjected to "questioning of an objectionable and oppressive nature" prior to the admission made by him and that the Special Criminal Court was wrong in admitting that evidence. The submissions made on behalf of the accused stressed two points. Firstly, it was submitted that the questioning was oppressive, that the will of the accused was undermined which resulted in the alleged admission

(2) where the victim was a member of the Garda Siochana, knowledge on the part of the person accused that he was such and was acting in the course of his duty or advertence to such a possibility and reckless disregard thereof: The Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied that the shooting of Garda Byrne constituted the offence of Capital Murder within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 1964. As there was no evidence at the trial to show which of the masked men fired the fatal shot which killed Garda Byrne, Counsel for one of the Appellants, Patrick McCann, submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal that it was essential to identify the killer and show that he had the necessary mens rea. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered that this submission was plainly wrong. The Court stated:- "The importation of criminal responsibility from the acts of another committed in pursuance of a common design or enterprise is recognised as continuing by all the Judges of the Supreme Court in D.P.P. v. Murray." The Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied that the evidence in the case admitted of no other inference except the existence of a common intent on the part of all those involved in the bank raid to kill or seriously injure anyone in their way and this included members of the Gardai. This common purpose and intent continued in existence up to shooting of the Gardai. The Court of Criminal Appeal then considered separately whether, on the basis of the existence of such common enterprise, the participation or involvement by each of the accused had been proved in accordance with law. Contested Admission — Peter Pringle The Court of Criminal Appeal considered that although there was a considerable amount of forensic and other evidence at the trial, the accused Pringle would not have been convicted but for the fact that the Special Criminal Court construed certain words which the Accused spoke after his arrest as amounting to an admission of guilt. The Special Criminal Court held these words of admission were admissible in evidence. Those findings were challenged in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The accused, Peter Pringle had been arrested under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. He was subsequently interviewed many times and at length. In one of the last interviews there was evidence that he said to members of the Garda Siochana; "I know that you know I was involved but on the advice of my Solicitor I am saying nothing and you will have to prove it all the way." The accused was then cautioned. A note was taken of what the accused said and it was read over to him. When the accused was asked 'Is that correct?' the accused said "on the advice of my Solicitor I am saying nothing". The Court of Criminal Appeal considered that the context in which the words were spoken was relevant. During the period of approximately 43 hours before the

58