The Gazette 1983

GAZETTE

APRIL 1983

Youcan judgea businessman bythe ible porta heus< Dictaphone124 TheNotetaker

The Court of Criminal Appeal did not consider that the motive of the accused when he said the words of admission:- "I know that you know I was involved but on the advice of my Solicitor I am saying nothing and y ou will have to prove it all the wa y ."

was to avoid the possible involvement of his friend in future criminal proceedings.

F o r e n s ic Ev i d e n ce A further ground of appeal related to fibres taken from a maroon coloured pullover which the accused admitted he was wearing on the 7th July 1 9 80 and also to fibres found in cars used by the raiders. The Special Criminal Court stated that the evidence relating to the fibres was consistent with the finding of guilt which the Court reached on the evidence of the accused's admission. An expert witness who had compared the fibres had stated in evidence that the major comparison between the two sets of fibres was the colour which could be observed in the "comparison microscope". It had been argued that the Judges should have examined the fibres themselves and, as the Judges had not done so, it was submitted on behalf of the accused in the Court of Criminal Appeal that the evidence was inadmissible. The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected that ground of appeal stating that the Judges of the Court were not required themselves to carry out any laboratory experiments or to use any laboratory equipment for visual comparisons or otherwise. Application for leave to appeal by Pringle failed. The verdict of Court of Trial stood. F o o t n o t es 1. People v. Shaw. 17 December 1980, Supreme Court, unreported. 2. People (A.G.) v. O'Brien. (1965) I.R. 142. 3. D.P.P. v. Lynch [1981] ILRM, 389. 4. In Re Article 26 of The Constitution and the Emergency Powers Bill, 1976, [1977] IR, 150. 5. People (D.P.P.) v. Madden & Ors. [1977] IR, 336. 6. State (Harrington) v. Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. High Court, unreported, 14 December 1976. 7. People (D.P.P.) v. Pringle, McCann & O'Shea. Court of Criminal Appeal, 22 May, 1981. Unreported.

Instead of making notep on scraps of paper, let the 124 streamline your working day. You can record your thoughts in a quarter of the time it takes to write them down. It's shorter than a ballpoint pen, smaller than a notepad, yet it records for 30 minutes. That's equivalent to 15 pages of typing.

IT

Dictaphone 125 TheHomeworker There's no need to hold up your work because your secretary has gone home.

The 125 gives you 30 minutes dictation in the palm of your hand. There's a thumb- operated cueing system for indexing letters and instructions, top located microphone and warning signals for end of tape and low battery.

8. People (D.P.P.) v. Murray [1977] IR 360. 9. People (A.G.) v. Casey [ 1963] IR. 33. 10. R. v. Turnbull Í1976] 3 W.L.R. 445. 11. D.P.P. v. Breathnach. 16 February 1981.

Dictaphone Company Ltd. Leamington Spa. Warwick* Dictaphone is a registered trade mark

12. R. v. Prager. (1972], 56 Criminal Appeal Reports 151. 13. R. v. Priestly [1965], 51 Criminal Appeal Reports. 14. R. v. Priestly, [1965], 51 Criminal Appeal Reports 1.

To: Dictaphone Company Ltd. Leeson Court 86 - 88 Lower Leeson Street Dublin Tel: 789144

Please send me more information on your portable dictation range and the address of my nearest stockist. Nam»» Company. Address.

(Part 2 of this article will appear in Ma y, 1 9 83 Gazette).

G A Z E T TE B I N D E R S Binders which will hold 2 0 issues are available from the Society. Price: £ 5 . 1 4 (incl. VAT ) + 8 7p postage.

Dictaphone A Pitney Bowes Company

I | PORTABLE WCIWIDRS

60