Attorney General (The People) v Williams

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judgment Date: 19 April 1940
• Date: 19 April 1940

The People (Attorney-General) v. Williams.

THE PEOPLE (at the Suit of the Attorney-General.)

and

DENIS WILLIAMS (1)

Supreme Court.

Criminal law - Charge of unlawful carnal knowledge of girl under 15 years - Evidence of prosecutrix - Absence of corroboration - Judge's charge - Necessity for warning the jury - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935 (No. 6 of 1935), s. 1, sub-s. 1.

Where, on a charge of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 15 Years of age, there is no corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix, the attention of the jury should be directed by the Judge to the absence of corroboration and a warning should be given them of the necessity of exercising great care in weighing her evidence. The degree and gravity of the warning should depend upon the particular circumstances of the case; but in every case, when an adequate warning has been given, the jury should be told that they are entitled to act on the evidence of the prosecutrix if they are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that it is truthful.

So held by the Supreme Court on appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Appeal from the refusal of the Court of Criminal Appeal to grant leave to Denis Williams to appeal against his conviction and sentence by the Central Criminal Court to 5 years' penal servitude on an indictment of two counts, each of which charged him with unlawful carnal knowledge of Maura Coogan, a girl under the age of 15 years, contrary to s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935.

The appeal was taken under s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, the Court of Criminal Appeal having certified, in accordance with that section, that the decision involved a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it was desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court.

The appeal was taken on the following grounds:—

1. That the trial Judge failed to direct the jury that there was no corroboration of the prosecutrix's account of the alleged offence.

2. That the trial Judge failed to warn the jury that it was unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix.

Cur. adv. vult.

Sullivan C.J. :—

Denis Williams, the appellant in this appeal, was tried by Hanna J. sitting at the Central Criminal Court with a jury on an indictment containing two counts, each of

which charged him with having had unlawful carnal knowledge of Maura Coogan, a girl under the age of fifteen years, contrary to s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935. He was found guilty on both counts, and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. An application for a certificate giving leave to appeal was refused. He subsequently applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence on the grounds:—[Reads the two grounds of appeal already set out.]

That application was refused, but the Court certified that their decision involved a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it was desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to this Court pursuant to s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924.

On the hearing of this appeal counsel on behalf of the appellant did not contend that the evidence given at the trial was insufficient in law to support the conviction, and, on the other hand, counsel for the respondent did not suggest that there was any corroboration of the evidence of the girl Maura Coogan. That being so, it is not necessary to refer in any detail to the evidence.

At the time when the offences charged are alleged to have been committed Maura Coogan had just passed fourteen years of age, and was living with her foster-mother, Mary Coogan, in a house in Powerscourt demesne. The other occupants of the house were Mary Coogan's parents, her uncle Denis Williams (the accused), her two nephews, and another foster-child. Maura Coogan's evidence was that on the occasions mentioned in the indictment she had gone with the accused, at his request, to gather firewood in Powerscourt Wood, and that while there he had had carnal knowledge of her by force and against her will. On her return home she had made no complaint to any one, and until she got unwell in the month following her foster-mother knew nothing of what had occurred. She then told her foster-mother, who had her examined by the local doctor. In the month of February, 1939, she was found to be pregnant, and in the month of August she gave birth to a child. Unquestionably, therefore, some person had committed a criminal offence against Maura Coogan, but her evidence that the offence was committed by the accused was not corroborated by any other evidence in the case. The accused gave evidence denying the charges, and as matters stood at the close of the evidence the verdict depended upon the view that the jury took of the credibility of Maura Coogan. Apart from the occurrences in question the accused and Maura Coogan were, apparently, persons of good character.

In his charge the learned Judge told the jury that the question they had to determine was whether they believed Maura Coogan beyond a reasonable doubt or whether they believed the accused, that the accused was entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt they might have, that they would have to look at all the facts and come to the conclusion whether Maura Coogan told the truth, and that, if they believed her, then that was all that was necessary. The learned Judge did not direct the attention of the jury to the fact that Maura Coogan's evidence, on which the prosecution rested, was uncorroborated, nor did he caution the jury that they should consider the evidence with particular care in view of her age and the nature of the offences with which the accused was charged. No objection was taken to the charge by counsel for the accused.

The offences with which the accused was charged are offences against the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935. Sect. 1, sub-s. 1, of that Act provides:—

"Any person who unlawfully and carnally knows any girl under the age of fifteen years shall be guilty of a felony, and shall be liable on conviction thereof to penal servitude for life or for any term not less than three years or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years."

In cases coming within that section the question whether or not the girl consented to the act is in law immaterial. She is a competent witness, and if she gives her evidence upon oath corroboration of her evidence is not required by any statutory provision. It follows that, even if the only evidence for the prosecution in support of the charge of an offence against that section is the sworn testimony of the girl affected, the case must be left...