The Gazette 1983

APRIL 1983

GAZETTE

relevant. The Court of Criminal Appeal in their judgment then dealt with a submission by Counsel for the accused Pringle that the evidence of the words spoken by the accused was inadmissible because it was procured by threats and or inducements. The Court then referred to the relevant evidence. The áccused stated in evidence that he had a "close relationship" with a certain lady. This lady had been questioned about the crimes and the accused's involvement in them. She had been brought to the Garda Station on the 20th July. She answered questions in the presence of the accused. The accused gave evidence in the trial within the trial that he was told if he gave an account of his movements on the 7th July "the whole matter of (the lady) being at worst charged, or at least having to give evidence wouldn't arise." The Special Criminal Court in its judgment on this issue said that they were satisfied from the nature of the statements made by certain of the interrogating Gardai to the Accused:- "that the effect thereof could and consequently must be regarded as constituting a threat or inducement to the Accused to make a statement." The Special Criminal Court, however, held that not- withstanding the inducement, the verbal statement was admissible on the grounds that (A) the effect of the threat or inducement had been dissipated by subsequent events and (B) had not been revived by any subsequent questioning. The Court was satisfied that the effect of such threat or inducement had been dissipated as a result of an interview the accused had with his solicitor before he made the admission. IB IRISH LAW REPORTS MONTHLY Volume 3 [1983] 12 Issues plus Index Facts ILRM— now in its third year of publication — has seta precedent in Irish law reporting and has proved to be a valuable service to practitioners. Subscriptions — The annual subscription is £ 9 0 . 00 + 23% VAT. Second and subsequent subscriptions from the same source are supplied at a reduced rate. Barristers — A special reduced rate applies to barristers in practice for 5 years or less. Back issues — are available in a buckram binding: volume 1 1 9 81 and volume 2 1982, price £ 6 5 . 00 per volume.

not being a voluntary one. Secondly, it was submitted that the alleged admission was procured by improper inducements and threats which "vitiated" the alleged admission as admissible evidence. In this context, Counsel for the accused, stressed the duration of the questioning of the accused before the incriminating words were spoken. The accused had been arrested at 3 p.m. on the afternoon of the 19th July. He was interviewed several times at length that afternoon, next day and the following morning. However, during his detention the accused had five consultations with his solicitor. The Court of Criminal Appeal referred to the fact that they had recently considered in DPP v. Breathnach n why statements obtained by oppressive questioning are inadmissible. The concept of what is involved in "oppressive police interrogation" was also considered in the same case. In that case, the President of the High Court delivering judgment stated:- "This Court accepts with approval the description of oppressive questioning given by Lord MacDermott in an address to the Bentham Club and adopted by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in England in R v. Prager 12 . In that address Lord MacDermott described it as "questioning which by its nature, duration or other attendant circumstances (including the fact of custody) excites hopes (such as the hope of release) or fears or so affects the mind of the subject that his will crumbles and he speaks when otherwise he would have stayed silent". This Court would further adopt with approval the definition of oppression in the context of questioning contained in the Judgment of Sachs, J. in R v. Priestly 13 where he defined it as follows: . . " to my mind this word in the context ot the principles under consideration imports something which tends to sap and has sapped the free will which must exist before a confession is voluntary." The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded on this aspect of the case: "The length of the duration of the interviewing of the accused and the shortness of the duration of the accused's sleep do not in themselves establish the validity of the submission now being considered. It is obvious as the Court of Trial pointed out, that what may be oppressive as regards a child, an invalid, or an old man or somebody inexperienced in the ways ot tne world may turn out not to be oppressive when one tinds that the accused person is of tough character and an experienced man of the world." (See judgment of Sachs J in R v Priestly 1 *. And so when a Court in considering an allegation such as has been made in this case the physical, mental and emotional characteristics of the person whose will it is said was undermined must be considered. A Court of Trial before whom an accused gives evidence is obviously in a better position than an appellate Court to reach a correct conclusion on such an issue." The Court of Criminal Appeal considered that the accused was "an experienced man of the world not unused to conditions of physical hardship." The fact that the accused had the benefit of five visits from his Solicitor prior to when he spoke the incriminating words was also

For further details please contact the publishers:

The Round Hall Press Ltd. Kill Lane, Blackrock Co. Dublin Telephone 850922

59