18 / 264
GAZETTE
JANUARY/ILLRUARY UJ77
pie evidence upon which the Special
Criminal Court could make the
findings of fact which it did.
Although it would be possible for a
protracted period of detention,
coupled with persistent interrogation
or interviews by the Gardai, to con-
stitute oppression even without
physical violence, in this case there
was direct evidence as to Doyle's
morale and mental capacity namely
that it was good, alert, and normal.
Consequently this Court cannot up-
set the finding of the Special Criminal
Court, when they ruled Doyle's state-
ment admissible.
(2) It was contended that irrespective
of the findings of fact made by
the Special Criminal Court, the
failure by the Garda to provide for
Doyle any legal adviser at the time of
making the statement, when he asked
for one, was a deprivation of his con-
stitutional rights. The Court is
satisfied that a person held in deten-
tion by the Garda, whether under the
Offences against the State Acts or
not, has got a right to reasonable ac-
cess to his legal advisers, and that a
refusal upon request to give such
reasonable access would render his
de t en t i on i l l e ga l. The test
is one of reasonable means having
regard to the circumstances of each
individual case. This does not mean
that there is any obligation on a
Garda to ofTer a detained person the
assistance of a legal adviser without
request. The Special Criminal Court
found as a fact that Doyle did not at
any time request the presence of a
legal adviser.
Under S.52 of the Offences against
the State Act, 1939, a Garda may de-
mand from any person in custody un-
der the Act an account of his
movements, and information relating
to the commission of any suspected
crime under the Act. Any person who
refuses to give an account of his
movements, or of such truthful infor-
mation, is guilty of ar. offence, and is
liable to be sentenced to 6 months
imprisonment. Apart from S.52, any
person detained by the Gardai,
whether under the Offences against
the State Acts or otherwise, is entitled
in law to refuse to give an account of
his movements, or to give the infor-
mation requested, and is not liable to
a penalty if such information is false
or misleading.
The confining of an obligation un-
der S.52 to the giving of a single ac-
count of his movements, provided it
is complete and true, does not
prohibit the Gardai from further
questioning, although it removes the
penalty in the event of the person
detained refusing to answer such
further or repeated questions.
In this case however all the
material statements tendered in
evidence were not made as a result of
any form of request of an account of
the accused's movement, but, as
found by the Special Criminal Court,
after a proper caution duly ad-
ministered to the accused. The mere
fact that on repeated occasions the
accused was requested to give an ac-
count of his movements by different
Gardai did not constitute illegal ac-
tion towards him, nor the deprivation
of any right on his part; this was
therefore a lawful detention.
(3) Even if the admissibility of
Doyle's statement be accepted, this
did not constitute an admission of
participation in the crime of murder.
In the statement, Doyle admitted that
he had stolen the white Cortina car in
Kilfinane on 6th June, 1975, at the
request of a friend in Cork; he then
concealed the car in Limerick, and
drove it to Cork on the night of 8th
June, 1975. On 9th June, Doyle took
the existing number plates off the car,
and, and having thrown them in the
river, substituted false number plates.
He then parked the car in Evergreen
Road, and went to meet his friend.
While driving around, his compa-
nions were discussing the feasibility
of getting at White; Doyle thought he
was going to be wounded or beaten
up. This Court is satisfied that, after
the knowledge which Doyle acquired
on his journey towards Evergreen
Road as to the iniquitous purpose for
which the car was required, he took
active steps to assist in implementing
that purpose, and that Doyle knew
that the crime which was to be com-
mitted was one which would cause
serious injury to White.
Having regard to the authorities, it
is clear that in such circumstances
Doyle is guilty of murder. The ap-
plication for leave to appeal on behalf
of Doyle is accordingly refused.
People (Director of Public
Prosecutions) v. Madden, O'Donnell,
Lynch and Doyle.-Court of Criminal
Appeal (The Chief Justice, The Presi-
dent of the High Court and Gannon
J.) per O'Higgins C. J.-unreported-
16th November, 1976
Damages for £1,162 "awarded for
costs of remedying detailed defects
and for inconvenience'hi carrying out
repairs to dwelling house.
The defendants undertook to build
for the plaintiff the dwellinghouse
now known as 101, Georgian Villas,
Castleknock for £12,250. The
plaintiff claims damages for the costs
of remedying defects in his house,
and for diminution in the value of the
house because of the defendant's
alleged failure to construct the
adjoining house to a high standard of
construction and design, as well as
for inconvenience and anxiety. The
only plans seen by the plaintiff before
entering the contract were a "Sales
Specification" and a "House Type
7A", which, showing individual
rooms, gave a total floor space to the
house of 1,400 square feet.
Subsequently the plaintiff obtained
from the Planning Dept. of Dublin
Co r p o r a t i on a " B u i l d e r 's
Specification", which detailed the
houses to be built in the Georgian
Village by a sub-contractor named
Belcourt Housing Estate Ltd., which
was not a contract document
The principles in
Brown v. Norton
(1954) I.R.34 as to the house being
reasonably fit for immediate
occupation when completed were to
apply. Clause 12 of the contract
excluded any liability of the
defendants for structural defects
in workmanship and materials not
being in accordance with the
specifications, and the plaintiff
insisted upon the addition of this
clause—"Provided that nothing in this
contract is to deprive the purchaser
of his guaranteed common law
rights". Thus the defendants arc
deprived of any defence under the
printed clause in rcspect of any defect
attributable to a breach of contract
on their part.
As a result of delays in erection the
plaintiff did not enter into occupation
of the house until 25th November,
1971. 11 houses were then
completed, but the standard of
workmanship by the sub-contractors
was very poor. On 8th December,
1971, the plaintiff and other
dissatisfied purchasers were informed
that Guinness & Mahon had taken
control of the defendant company,
and intended to carry out all
necessary remedial works. A list of
defects was sent to the plaintiff by the
architects, who represented all the
purchasers of the estate, on 14th
December, 1971. The various defects