GAZETTE
MARCH 1 9 8 7
out in subsection 8. If the time limit
is not adhered to the alibi may on-
ly be adduced by leave of the court.
In Ireland the prescribed time
period is in effect 14 days from the
date the accused is sent forward
for trial. The relevant period in the
U.K. is seven days after the com-
mittal proceedings are completed.
Again there is no judicial authority
in Ireland as to how the trial Judge
is to use his discretion. It would ap-
pear however that up to now the
discretion has been exercised in
favour of the accused persons in
our courts. This practice accords
with the position in the U.K. as set
out in several different cases. In
"Sullivan"
4
for instance, it was
held that the mere fact that the
Notice was served out of time does
not of itself, as a general rule,
justify the court in exercising its
discretion to exclude. The discre-
tion must be exercised judicially. In
that case the Notice had been serv-
ed out of time, but the trial was ad-
journed to allow the prosecutor to
investigate the alibi. At the new
hearing the defence was not
allowed adduce the alibi evidence
by the trial judge. It was held on ap-
peal that the evidence ought to
have been allowed in, and indeed
Salmon L. J. referred to the pro-
secution's argument that the
evidence ought to be excluded,
solely on the grounds that the
Notice was out of time as being
"indefensible"
5
and " a bizarre
contention"
6
in the circumstances
of the case. In
R. -v- Cooper
1
the
appellants legal advisors failed to
Michael Reilly
B.E. M.I.E.I.
CONSULTANT
CIVIL ENGINEER
Property Surveys
Fire end Structursl Reports
18 PARNELL ST., CLONMEL
Tel.: 052-24360
Telex: 80278
serve the Notice. The Appeal Court
held that an accused person ought
not to be put at a disadvantage by
the errors of his legal advisors. The
Trial Judge, it held, ought to have
given leave for the evidence to be
called subject to the service of a
Notice outside time and to an ad-
journment to allow the prosecution
to investigate the alibi.
Application of English Case
Law in Irish Courts
The reasoning in these cases
ought, I submit, to be followed
here. The requirement that Notice
of an Alibi must be given was intro-
duced into our Law to allow the
prosecution time to investigate the
alibi - it was not introduced to
punish defendants for their delay
and laxity in preparing their
defence. Nevertheless the defence
lawyer ought not to rely on the
discretion of a trial Judge to allow
in a Notice served out of time. At
best he will find himself the victim
of barbed judicial comment, while
at worst he may find that he
himself may have to pay the ex-
penses associated with an adjourn-
ment and retrial. In addition an
accused person in those cir-
cumstances would appear to have
no d i f f i cu l ty in sustaining a
negligence action against his
defence solicitor. Until now
defence lawyers have had several
weeks, if not months, to prepare
the defence case and interview the
accused person and any defence
witnesses. That is no longer the
case. The defence solicitor should
not serve an Alibi Notice without
first interviewing the alibi
witnesses and taking a statement
from them. As will be shown later
the prosecution may be able to use
the Alibi Notice as part of their
case. It could be suicide from a
defence point of view to nominate
certain witnesses on the blind and
discover later that not only could
they not corroborate the alibi but in
fact destroy it. Interviewing
witnesses and taking statements
can take a lot of time, particularly
when one is busy with other cases
and the 14 days can easily slip by
without one noticing. Furthermore,
as in all probability a barrister will
be briefed for the Jury trial, it is on-
ly good practice that he or she
should read the statements of the
witnesses and settle the Notice
before it is served. Here again the
defence solicitor may be leaving
himself open to an action for
negligence if he himself decides to
go ahead and serve an Alibi Notice
without conferring with Counsel if
it later transpires that Counsel
would have advised against the
serving of such Notice or would
have in fact drafted it in a different
way. I suggest therefore that if it
appears at all from initial instruc-
tions that an alibi may be proffered,
it is good practice to seek a remand
for at least one month when the
Book of Evidence is served, provid-
ed of course the client so consents.
That month should be used to in-
terview potential witnesses and
to consult properly with Counsel.
The Notice can then be easily
drafted and served well within the
period.
"Particulars"
Once it is decided to serve an
Alibi Notice it is important to con-
sider what details it ought to con-
tain. The Act merely states that
"Particulars" of the alibi should be
given. It goes on to provide that the
Notice must contain the name and
address, if known, of any alibi
witnesses. It does not however
define what is meant by par-
ticulars. Furthermore there does
not seem to be any case law even
in the U.K. The Chief State
Solicitor's Office in Ireland con-
siders that the defence must in fact
submit a Statement of Evidence of
each witness. This is, I submit,
much too wide a requirement. We
are, thankfully, not yet at the stage
where the defence must serve its
own "Book of Evidence" on the
prosecution. It is sufficient in my
submission that the details of the
alibi be made known, i.e. a note as
to where the accused was at the
particular time and place and a note
as to who saw him there. Finally
there is an onus on the defence to
give the prosecution sufficient in-
formation to allow them to trace
the witnesses.
Once the prosecution have
received the Notice they then have
the opportunity to investigate it. I
am certain that this is going to give
rise to a lot of difficulties and
disagreements between prosecu-
tion and defence in the future. It is
noteworthy first of all that the Act
does not give any power to the pro-
i secution to investigate the alibi.
3 8