Attorney General v O'Brien
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1936 |
| Date | 30 July 1936 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal (Irish Free State) |
View to compel act which there was a legal right to abstain from doing - Gist of offence - Duration of watching and besetting - Whether separate offences -Two premises - Whether more than one offence in same count - Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 (38 39 Vict., c. 86.
The appellants were convicted on a count of "watching and besetting contrary to s. 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875."The particulars of the offence alleged that with a view to compelling T. H. to do an act, namely to close his business premises (at two named shops), which the said T. H. had a legal right to abstain from doing, they did wrongfully and without legal authority watch and beset the said premises where the said T. H. carried on a business. Held, that the gist of the offence is the view to compel an act which there was a legal right to abstain from doing; and, accordingly, only one offence is constituted by the section. The indictment, therefore, did not charge more than one offence in the same count. The sub-heads in the section (including the sub-head relating to "watching or besetting") indicate merely the various methods...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State (Hardy) v District Justice O'Flynn
...one offence. Accordingly, the convictions were not bad for duplicity and must be sustained. Attorney-Generalv. O'Brien and OthersDLTR 70 I. L. T. R. 101 followed. Reg. v. EdmondesUNK 59 J. P. 776 and Clarkson v. StuartUNK 32 S. L. R. 4 discussed. High Court. The State (Hardy) v. District Ju......
-
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Heffernan
...on some issue in the trial. 25 To begin with, there is a long-established presumption of law that the accused person is sane. In The Attorney General v. O'Brien [1936] I.R. 263 the Court of Criminal Appeal accepted the following passage from Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law as a correc......
-
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2)
...express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples even toward those charged with the most heinous offenses." In The People (Attorney General) v O'Brien [1965] IR 142, 150, the Supreme Court of Ireland held, per Kingsmill Moore J, that "to countenance the use of evidence extracted o......
-
DPP v Redmond
...-Whether abuse of process to accept guilty plea - People (DPP) v O'Mahony [1985] IR517, People (AG) v Messitt [1972] IR 204, AG v O'Brien [1936] IR 263 and Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 considered - Held that trial judge must accept plea (160/2004 - SC - 6/4/2006) [2006] I......
-
The Law of Insanity and Diminished Responsibility in Criminal Law versus the Meaning of Insanity within the Medical Profession: an inevitable conflict?
...of diminished responsibility when the trial judge reasserted, although obiter , that abnormality is not a defence. 41 33 AG v O’Brien [1936] IR 263; AG v Boylan [1937] IR 449 34 McAuley, Insanity, Psychiatry and Criminal Responsibility (Dublin: Roundhall Press, 1993) p 1 35 Doyle v Wicklow ......
-
The Theory of Justification and Excuse and its Implications for the Battered Woman
...of the law on insanity. In Doyle v. Wicklow Co. Co. [1974] I.R. 55, the Supreme Court upheld the decision in People (A.G.) v. O’Brien [1936] I.R. 263 stating that the M’Naghten Rules were not the “sole and exclusive” criteria for insanity. It went on to endorse an earlier ruling in People (......