247 / 264
GAZE1TE
DECEMBER 1977
OFFENCES AGAINST THE
STATE ACT 1939 —
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
Extension of 24-hour detention
period, under Section 30 of die
Offences Against the State Act 1939,
by a Superintendent, unlawful, unless
evidence produced that Garda
Commissioner authorized the
Superintendent to so extend detention
period.
George Farrell was convicted in the
Special Criminal Court of causing an
explosion contrary to Section 2 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1883. The
only evidence connecting him with
the explosion was certain verbal and
one written statement made by him.
On appeal to the Court of Criminal
Appeal, he contended that these
statements ought not to have been
admitted. Eleven grounds of appeal
were put forward.
Grounds 1 to 3 were concerned
with his alleged right to be informed
of his right to consult a solicitor and
his alleged right to a medical
examination before he was subjected
to interrogation. The Court rejected
these first grounds. There was no
authority for the proposition that
every person under suspicion of or
faced with a charge of a criminal
offence had a constitutional right to
have the services of a solicitor and
doctor before being questioned by
Gardai. There is a constitutional duty
on the Court of trial to be vigilant to
ensure that the trial be in all respects
fair and just. The various rights of an
accused are all related to his
particular circumstances. The trial
Court had ample evidence in relation
to the physical and mental capacity
of the appellant and its rulings on the
matters raised in these first grounds
of appeal were made in the proper
exercise of its discretion and were
correct.
The sixth and seventh grounds of
appeal related to the failure by the
Gardai to record what was said by
the accused after the caution. These
grounds were also rejected. The Trial
Court has a judicial discretion
whether to admit or reject a
particular statement. If the Judges
rules are breached, each of such
breaches calls for adequate
explanation. Before exercising its
discretion, the Trial Court must
consider the breaches, and
explanations of them, if any, in the
context of the entire circumstances of
the case. Here, again, the discretion
was properly utilized.
24
The fourth and fifth grounds of
appeal were concerned with the place
of detention under Section 30 (3) of
the Act. Under that sub-section, an
accused must be detained "in a
Garda station, a prison, or some
other convenient place". During his
first period of detention Farrell had
consented to accompany two Gardai
in a patrol car for a couple of hours
to point out various places to them.
The Court of Criminal Appeal
accepted the contention that there
must be continual detention in a
recognized "place". Furthermore, it
held that a vehicle was not a
convenient place under the sub-
section. However, it further held that
detention is not ended if, for some
understandable reason, a temporary
absence of the detainee in the care
and custody of the Gardai becomes
necessary. The detention continues to
be the Garda Station. These grounds
of appeal, therefore, also failed.
The final ground of appeal
concerned the extension of FarrelTs
detention after the first twenty-four
hours had elapsed. The detention was
extended not by a Chief Superintendent
as required under Section 30 (3) of
the Act but by a Superintendent.
Under Section 3 (3) a Superintendent
may exercise any power conferred by
the Act on a Chief Superintendent
provided he is so authorized to do so in
writing by the Commissioner. The
extension direction served on Farrell
stated that the Superintendent had, in
fact, been authorized to extend the
period. This direction was later
exhibited in Court. The Court of
Criminal Appeal held that this was
not sufficient. There was no evidence
that the Commi s s i oner had
authorized the Superintendent. The
recital in the extension direction had
no evidential value whatsoever. The
written authorization was not
produced in Court nor, indeed, was
there even any evidence that the
authorization had been made. The
Offences Against the State Act must
be strictly construed. The power in
this case was one not normally given
to a Superintendent. No presumptions
could, therefore, be made. The
second period of detention was,
therefore, unlawful. Since all the
incriminating statements made by
the accused were made during this
second period, they ought not to have
been admitted and the decision in the
State (DJ*J>.) v Madden
(unreported
— 16 November, 1976,) applies.
The Appeal is, therefore, allowed.
D.P.P. v Farrell
— Court of
Criminal Appeal (per O'Higgins C.J.
with Gannon and D'Arcy JJ.) —
Unreported — 29 July 1977.
Solicitor
Grade I
Dublin Corporation
Salaryt £6 , 407 - £7,254.
Essential!
Admission and enrolment as a
Solicitor in the State and three years
experience, including experience of Court
work.
Where appropriate the results of this
competition may be used to fill additional
vacancies.
Application forms etc. from:
Secretary, Local
Appointments Commission,
1 Lower Grand Canal Straat,
Dublin 2.
Closing date:
23rd February, 1978.