The Gazette 1995

GAZETTE

JULY 1995

Recent Criminal Law Cases

Compiled by Colette Carey

5. People (DPP) -v- Vincent Connell, Applicant

five years. A concurrent sentence o f 12 months on a plea of guilty to indecent assault was affirmed. {O'Flaherty J., 14 March 1 9 9 5}

Mindful of the needs of busy criminal law practitioners who require concise information on recent developments in case law, the Criminal Law Committee proposes that a synopsis of judgments handed down in recent selected cases will be published on a regular basis. The following constitutes the first such selection.

The Applicant's conviction in the Central Criminal Court on a charge of murder was quashed. The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (and Regulations thereunder) relating to treatment o f persons in custody were considered. The court held that an inculpatory statement of the Applicant ought not to have been admitted in evidence. The court further held that there had been a breach of the Applicant's constitutional right of access to a solicitor. No order made directing a re-trial. Judgement was reserved on an application for costs. [EganJ., 3 April 1 9 9 5} The Applicant's conviction in the Special Criminal Court on a charge of possession of explosives was upheld. The court found that the necessary legal powers of search under Section 30 had been invoked before the explosives were revealed. There was no causative link between the search and the production of the explosives. S . 29 Certificate was g r an t ed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 16 March 1995. [O'Flaherty J., 28 February 1 9 9 5} 6. People (DPP) -v- Christopher O'Donnell, Applicant

3. In re: Section 2, Criminal Procedure Act, 1993 People

(DPP) -v- Meleady and Grogan, Applicant

The Applicants' convictions in Dublin Circuit Court for assault and malicious damage were quashed. It was held that newly discovered facts (within the meaning of the 1993 Act) rendered the trial unsafe and unsatisfactory. However, a re-trial was not ordered as sentence had already been served. An application for a certificate under s.9 of 1993 Act that a miscarriage of justice had occurred was refused. The court reviewed the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal. An application was made for a s.29 Cert (leave to appeal to S . C .) and for costs pending. {KeaneJ ., 22 March 1 9 9 5} The Applicant had been convicted in the Dublin Circuit Court on a charge of handling. A larceny count had been withdrawn from the j u r y 's consideration at the direction of the trial judge. It was held by the Court of Criminal Appeal that there was sufficient evidence for larceny and receiving (as an alternative) to be considered by the jury. The court also considered the treatment of alternative counts in an indictment. The conviction was quashed and no re-trial was ordered as sentence had already been served for handling. {O'Flaherty J., 24 February 1 9 9 5} 4. People (DPP) -v- Noel Fowler, Applicant

Court of Criminal Appeal:

1. People (DPP) -v- Sean Breen, Applicant

The Applicant's conviction by the Special Criminal Court on charges o f possession of ammunition was quashed. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that oral admissions ought not to have been allowed in evidence. It also held that basic fairness had been denied to the Applicant by the failure of the Gardai to administer a caution - People (DPP) -v- Shaw [ 1 9 8 2] IR applied. [Per Egan J., 13 March 1 9 9 5} The Applicant had been convicted in Dublin Circuit Court on pleas o f guilty to two charges of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 15. The complainant was the young woman at centre of the " X " case. Consecutive sentences of seven years penal Servitude ( 14 years in toto) had been imposed. On appeal the sentences were varied by the Court of Criminal Appeal to concurrent terms of four years penal servitude. The Court held that this was not a case where consecutive sentences were warranted and that seven year sentences were excessive in the circumstances of the case and on the basis of sentence imposed in similar offence cases over the last 2. People (DPP) -v- Z, Applicant

Courts-Martial Appeal Court

1. In the Matter of C., Appellant

The Appellant had been found guilty by Court-Martial of committing conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. The Appeal Court considered the principle enunciated in Buckley ( CMAC 28/7/93 Finlay C . J .) viz. the

206