273 / 336
Recent Irish Cases
The Court of Criminal Appeal has been properly
established in accordance with the Constitution
As a preliminary issue, it was contended that the
Court of Criminal Appeal had not been established
in accordance with the Constitution. The Chief Justice,
in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Court, stat-
ed that Article 34 of the Constitution gave authority
to the Oireachtas to establish and to disestablish such
Courts as it may think fit, subject to the constitutional
powers of the High Court and of the Supreme Court
not being infringed. Accordingly the Court of Criminal
Appeal had been validly established. As the Judges
who sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal are Judges
appointed in the manner provided by the Constitution,
they need not be specifically appointed Judges of that
Court. The jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Ap-
peal to give leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,
whether by that Court or by the Attorney-General, is
a jurisdiction circumscribed by statute.
The preliminary issue is consequently dismissed.
The People (A.G. v Conmey, (No. 1) —
Supreme Court (O'Higgins, C.J., Walsh, Budd, Grif-
fin and Doyle, JJ.)—Judgment of the Chief Justice—un-
reported—31st July, 1975.
Appeals may be taken directly to the Supreme
Court from the Central Criminal Court
Th e Supreme Court has ruled that appeals may be
taken direct to that court from the Central Criminal
Oourt. Chief Justice O'Higgins said that
the Supreme Court was given by the Constitution
full appellate jurisdiction over all determinations and
decisions of the Central Criminal Court and this in-
cluded a jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal
from a verdict of not guilty.
The Court was giving its reasons for a decision an-
nounced last July in which it held that the Court of
Criminal Appeal was validly extablished, an issue
which had been raised during the hearing of a motion
brought by Martin Conmey seeking an order extending
the time for the lodging and service of a notice of
appeal against a conviction for the manslaughter of
Miss U n a Lynskey. He had been convicted in the
Central Criminal Court in July, 1972, by Henchy, J.,
and sentenced to three years' penal servitude. Sub-
sequently the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his
appeal on 31 July, 1973.
Chief Justice O'Higgins, in his judgment,
said
that
in his opinion the Supreme
Court
was given, by Article 34 (4) (3) of the Constitution,
full appellate jurisdiction over all determinations and
decisions of the Central Criminal Court and this in-
cluded a jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal
from a verdict of not guilty, as the High Court, exercis-
ing Criminal Jurisdiction must consist of a Judge and
a jury.
The effect of the statutory provisions was to provide
a choice for a person convicted in the Central Criminal
Court either to avail of a direct appeal to the Supreme
Court or to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
If a such a person appealed to the Court of Criminal
Appeal, that was the end of the matter, unless he ob-
tained a certificate under Section 29 of the Courts of
Justice Act, 1924 from that Court or from the Attorney-
General. But the Constitution only confers on the
Supreme Court an exclusive appeal jurisdiction which
cannot be dismissed.
Appeal Dismissed by Court of Criminal Appeal
Mr. Justice Walsh, in his judgment, said that at a
trial in June, 1972, in the Central Criminal Court,
Martin Conmey was tried for murder On 15 July, he
was found not guilty of murder but guilty of man-
sloughter and sentenced to three years' penal servitude.
His appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was dis-
missed, and in October, 1974, his solicitor served a
notion of motion to the Supreme Court which purported
to be in the nature of an appeal to that Court in respect
of the proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal and
in respect of the conviction and order made in the
Central Criminal Court. He had not sought permis-
sion from that Court to appeal, and consequently that
appeal was unsustainable.
Th e only ground of appeal which arose for consider-
ation in the case was the ground which sought an
appeal against the conviction and order of the Central
Criminal Court. The case had been mainly concerned
with whether such an appeal lay to the Supreme Court
or not. As the Notice of Motion was brought more than
two years after conviction, the leave of the Supreme
Court to bring an appeal had first to be obtained,
and an application was made to the Court for an order
enlarging the time. The Court decided to hear the
arguments and submissions on the question of whether
an appeal lay to the Supreme Court in respect of the
conviction and sentence imposed by the Central Crim-
inal Court before deciding whether or not to extend
the time.
Important issue of Constitutional Law
The case, he said, raised an important issue of Con-
stitutional Law and the submissions to the Court had
ranged over a very wide field, including the question
of whether there was any distinction in principle be-
tween an acquittal and a conviction so far as the
question of appeal to the Supreme Court lay.
Mr. Justice Wa l sh said that Section 2 of the Courts
(Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, provided that
the High Court, exercising its criminal jurisdiction,
should be known as the Central Criminal Court. There
could, therefore, be no doubt that the Court which
tried the appellant was the High Court, duly establish-
ed—by the Courts (Establishment and Constitution)
Act 1961.
Article 34 (4 (3) of the Constitution provided that
. 2 6 6