The Gazette 1983

GAZETTE

APRIL 1983

(1) an intention to kill or cause serious injury, and

(2) where the victim was a member of the Garda

Siochana, knowledge on the part of the person

accused that he was such and was acting in the course

of his duty or advertence to such a possibility and

reckless disregard thereof:

The Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied that the

shooting of Garda Byrne constituted the offence of Capital

Murder within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act

1964.

As there was no evidence at the trial to show which of

the masked men fired the fatal shot which killed Garda

Byrne, Counsel for one of the Appellants, Patrick

McCann, submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal that

it was essential to identify the killer and show that he had

the necessary mens rea.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered that this

submission was plainly wrong. The Court stated:-

"The importation of criminal responsibility from the

acts of another committed in pursuance of a common

design or enterprise is recognised as continuing by all

the Judges of the Supreme Court in

D.P.P.

Murray."

The Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied that the

evidence in the case admitted of no other inference except

the existence of a common intent on the part of all those

involved in the bank raid to kill or seriously injure anyone

in their way and this included members of the Gardai. This

common purpose and intent continued in existence up to

shooting of the Gardai.

The Court of Criminal Appeal then considered

separately whether, on the basis of the existence of such

common enterprise, the participation or involvement by

each of the accused had been proved in accordance with

law.

Contested Admission — Peter Pringle

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered that although

there was a considerable amount of forensic and other

evidence at the trial, the accused Pringle would not have

been convicted but for the fact that the Special Criminal

Court construed certain words which the Accused spoke

after his arrest as amounting to an admission of guilt. The

Special Criminal Court held these words of admission

were admissible in evidence. Those findings were

challenged in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The accused, Peter Pringle had been arrested under

Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939.

He was subsequently interviewed many times and at

length. In one of the last interviews there was evidence that

he said to members of the Garda Siochana;

"I know that you know I was involved but on the advice

of my Solicitor I am saying nothing and you will have to

prove it all the way."

The accused was then cautioned. A note was taken of

what the accused said and it was read over to him. When

the accused was asked 'Is that correct?' the accused said

"on the advice of my Solicitor I am saying nothing".

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered that the

context in which the words were spoken was relevant.

During the period of approximately 43 hours before the

words of admission were spoken, the Accused had been

interviewed by members of the Garda .Siochana for

lengthy periods.

Certain forensic tests had been carried out on the

accused's clothing and during the interviews members of

the Garda Siochana informed the Accused of the evidence

they had obtained against him.

The Gardai asked the accused to comment on the

available evidence. This evidence was put to him in detail.

He was requested ^that he tell them the truth. Certain

forensic evidence had become available and this was also

put to the accused.

The accused had seen his solicitor on five occasions

prior to the time he made the alleged admission. His

solicitor advised him to say nothing in answer to the

questions he was asked. During the earlier interviews with

the Gardai, the accused either remained silent or stated he

had been advised by his solicitor to say nothing.

The Court of Criminal Appeal stated that they had no

doubt — taking into consideration the context in which the

words were spoken, that the words used by the accused

were an admission that he was involved in the raid and the

killing of the Gardai about which he was being questioned.

Nature and Extent of Involvement

Counsel on behalf of the accused Pringle submitted to

the Court of Criminal Appeal that it had not been

established beyond reasonable doubt that the admission of

the accused was an admission of such involvement to

make the accused guilty of murder and armed robbery.

The Court of Criminal Appeal did not accept this

submission. The Court again considered that the context

in which the words were spoken was significant and

relevant. In reaching its conclusion on the construction of

the accused's admission, the Court stated the same

conclusion could be reached by examining certain of the

evidence against the accused excluding the post arrest

interviews. This evidence consisted of certain visual

identification, forensic evidence to the effect that fibres

from the accused's jumper matched fibres taken from cars

involved in the crimes and forensic evidence concerning

the presence of firearm residue in jeans worn by the

accused. The Court of Criminal Appeal stated that they

were conscious of the care that must be taken in relation to

identification evidence and referred to

The People (A. G.)

Casey

and

Turnbull

The Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied that the

Special Criminal Court was correct in deciding that the

admission was an admission by the accused that he took

part in the raid and was in the getaway car.

"Questioning of an objectionable and oppressive

nature"

The Court of Criminal Appeal then considered whether

the Special Criminal Court was correct in allowing the

admission in evidence. It was submitted that the accused

Pringle had been subjected to "questioning of an

objectionable and oppressive nature" prior to the

admission made by him and that the Special Criminal

Court was wrong in admitting that evidence.

The submissions made on behalf of the accused

stressed two points. Firstly, it was submitted that the

questioning was oppressive, that the will of the accused

was undermined which resulted in the alleged admission