Attorney General v Bridget Cleary
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal (Irish Free State) |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1938 |
| Date | 01 January 1938 |
Admissibility - Statement made by accused - Inducement to tell the truth - Condition of fear produced in accused by suggestion that her statement would be tested -Statement not admitted - Practice - Re-trial on charge of which accused was convicted - Not on original indictment.
C. was charged with the murder of her infant child shortly after its birth. The only evidence given by the prosecution which connected her definitely with the killing of the child was a statement alleged to have been made by her to B., a Sergeant of the Gárda Siochána. B. stated in evidence that he had interviewed the accused. He stated that he administered the usual caution. The accused said that B. did not tell her that she need not make any statement and B. himself admitted that he said to her, "I intend to take a statement from you." B. stated in evidence that at first the accused denied everything. He stated further that he then said, "haven't you been attending a doctor." The accused alleged that he said he would bring her to the doctor, indicating his intention to test any statement she might make by submitting her to medical examination. She...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Hoey
...by threat if it is a fact and not a threat to harass others whom the gardaà did not believe were involved. Attorney Generalv. ClearyDLTR 72 I.L.T.R. 84 and Attorney Generalv. McCabeIR [1927] I.R. 129 applied. The Court of Criminal Appeal certified that its decision involved points of law of......
-
DPP v John Paul Buck
...it must be conveyed to the mind of the person to whom it is addressed’ (Kennedy C.J. on behalf of the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Attorney General v. Cleary [1934] 1 Frewen 14 at p. 17). Equally so what the Court of Criminal Appeal stated in The Attorney General v. Durnan (No. 2) [1934]......
-
People (Attorney General) v Griffin
...I.R. 58. 2 [1965] I.R. 366. 3 [1946] I.R. 517. 4 [1946] I.R. 517. 5 See p. 417, ante. 6 [1965] I.R. 366, 384. 7 See p. 417, ante. 8 (1934) 72 I.L.T.R. 84. ...
-
DPP v P.M.
...is not there. 32 In this context, the appellant places reliance on the words of Kennedy C.J. in Attorney General v Cleary (1938) 72 I.L.T.R. 84 (at pp. 85/86) where he remarked that: ‘…the sense of that caution, and every limb of it, must be conveyed to the mind of the person to whom it is ......