68 / 346
GAZETTE
APRIL 1983
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.
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.
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.
(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.
Youcan
judgea
businessman
bythe
ible
porta
heus<
Dictaphone124 TheNotetaker
IT
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.
Dictaphone Company Ltd. Leamington Spa. Warwick*
Dictaphone is a registered trade mark
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.
Dictaphone
I
A Pitney Bowes Company
|
PORTABLE WCIWIDRS
60
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.