230 / 424
GAZETTE
JULY 1995
Recent Criminal Law Cases
Compiled by
Colette Carey
Mindful of the needs of busy criminal
law practitioners who require concise
information on recent developments in
case law, the Criminal Law
Committee proposes that a synopsis of
judgments handed down in recent
selected cases will be published on a
regular basis. The following
constitutes the first such selection.
Court of Criminal Appeal:
1. People (DPP) -v-
Sean Breen,
Applicant
The Applicant's conviction by the
Special Criminal Court on charges
o f possession of ammunition was
quashed.
The Court of Criminal
Appeal held that oral admissions
ought not to have been allowed in
evidence. It also held that basic
fairness had been denied to the
Applicant by the failure of the
Gardai to administer a caution -
People
(DPP) -v- Shaw
[ 1 9 8 2] IR
applied.
[Per
Egan J.,
13 March 1 9 9 5}
2.
People (DPP) -v-
Z, Applicant
The Applicant had been convicted
in Dublin Circuit Court on pleas
o f guilty to two charges of
unlawful carnal knowledge of a
girl under the age of 15. The
complainant was the young
woman at centre of the " X " case.
Consecutive sentences of seven
years penal Servitude ( 14 years
in
toto)
had been imposed. On
appeal the sentences were
varied
by the Court of Criminal Appeal
to concurrent terms of four years
penal servitude. The Court held
that this was not a case where
consecutive sentences were
warranted and that seven year
sentences were excessive in the
circumstances of the case and on
the basis of sentence imposed in
similar offence cases over the last
five years. A concurrent sentence
o f 12 months on a plea of guilty to
indecent assault was
affirmed.
{O'Flaherty
J.,
14 March 1 9 9 5}
3. In re: Section 2, Criminal
Procedure Act, 1993 People
(DPP) -v- Meleady and Grogan,
Applicant
The Applicants' convictions in
Dublin Circuit Court for assault
and malicious damage were
quashed.
It was held that newly
discovered facts (within the
meaning of the 1993 Act)
rendered the trial unsafe and
unsatisfactory. However, a re-trial
was not ordered as sentence had
already been served. An
application for a certificate under
s.9 of 1993 Act that a miscarriage
of justice had occurred was
refused. The court reviewed the
jurisdiction of the Court of
Criminal Appeal. An application
was made for a s.29 Cert (leave to
appeal to S . C .) and for costs
pending.
{KeaneJ
.,
22 March 1 9 9 5}
4. People (DPP) -v- Noel Fowler,
Applicant
The Applicant had been convicted
in the Dublin Circuit Court on a
charge of handling. A larceny
count had been withdrawn from
the j u r y 's consideration at the
direction of the trial judge. It was
held by the Court of Criminal
Appeal that there was sufficient
evidence for larceny and receiving
(as an alternative) to be
considered by the jury. The court
also considered the treatment of
alternative counts in an
indictment. The conviction was
quashed
and no re-trial was
ordered as sentence had already
been served for handling.
{O'Flaherty
J.,
24 February
1 9 9 5}
5. People (DPP) -v- Vincent
Connell, Applicant
The Applicant's conviction in the
Central Criminal Court on a
charge of murder was
quashed.
The provisions of the Criminal
Justice Act 1984 (and Regulations
thereunder) relating to treatment
o f persons in custody were
considered. The court held that an
inculpatory statement of the
Applicant ought not to have been
admitted in evidence. The court
further held that there had been a
breach of the Applicant's
constitutional right of access to a
solicitor. No order made directing
a re-trial. Judgement was reserved
on an application for costs.
[EganJ.,
3 April 1 9 9 5}
6. People (DPP) -v- Christopher
O'Donnell, Applicant
The Applicant's conviction in the
Special Criminal Court on a
charge of possession of explosives
was
upheld.
The court found that
the necessary legal powers of
search under Section 30 had been
invoked before the explosives
were revealed. There was no
causative link between the search
and the production of the
explosives. S . 29 Certificate was
g r an t ed
by the Court of Criminal
Appeal on 16 March 1995.
[O'Flaherty
J.,
28 February
1 9 9 5}
Courts-Martial Appeal Court
1. In the Matter of C., Appellant
The Appellant had been found
guilty by Court-Martial of
committing conduct to the
prejudice of good order and
discipline. The Appeal Court
considered the principle
enunciated in
Buckley
( CMAC
28/7/93 Finlay C . J .) viz. the
206