[1933] IR 292

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date24 March 1933
Date24 March 1933
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal (Irish Free State)
Attorney-General v. Finegan
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
and
PETER FINEGAN (1)

Court of Criminal Appeal.

Criminal law - Receiving stolen property - Property stolen outside the Irish Free State - Accused apprehended within the Irish Free State with property in his possession - Short interval of time - Jurisdiction to convict of receiving - Evidence to support conviction - Larceny Act, 1916 (6 & 7Geo. 5, c. 50), sect. 33, sub-sect. 4 - Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1922 (No. 2 of 1922), sect. 3.

The appellant was convicted of having, in the County of Louth, received a bicycle lamp knowing it to have been stolen. At the trial, it appeared that the lamp had been taken from a bicycle in a town just outside the boundary of the Irish Free State. The appellant and a companion had been intercepted within the boundary of the Irish Free State as they were coming along the road from the direction of this town. The lamp was found in the possession of the appellant and he was thereupon arrested and charged. Objection was taken at the trial to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court but the objection was overruled. Upon an application for leave to appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal gave leave to appeal, the appeal to be confined to the question whether the facts proved at the trial ousted the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to try the appellant on the charge of receiving. Upon the hearing of the appeal:

Held, that sect. 33, sub-sect. 4, of the Larceny Act, 1916, applied to the facts which had been proved; that possession of goods, recently stolen, was a fact from which a jury might infer in the absence of a reasonable explanation on the part of the accused, either that he stole the goods or that he received them knowing them to have been stolen, and that, as no reasonable explantion had been put forward by the appellant to explain his possession of the lamp, and as there was evidence consistent with the lamp having been stolen by another person than the appellant, it was open to the jury to draw the inference that the lamp had been stolen outside the Irish Free State to the knowledge of the appellant and had been transferred to and received by him within the Irish Free State. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was, therefore, not ousted, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Criminal Appeal.

Peter Finegan appealed on 17th January, 1933, from his conviction and sentence at Dundalk Circuit Court, pursuant to leave granted by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The facts of the case have been summarised in the headnote and appear sufficiently from the judgment.

FitzGibbon J. :—

The appellant, Peter Finegan, was indicted for larceny contrary to sect. 2 of the Larceny Act, 1916, in that on the 11th day of October, 1932, in the County of Louth, he stole a bicycle lamp, the property of Daniel McNally. He was indicted upon a second count for receiving stolen goods contrary to sect. 33, sub-sect. 1, of the Larceny Act, 1916, in that on the 12th day of October, 1932, in the County of Louth, he received the same bicycle lamp, knowing it to have been stolen. The jury found the appellant not guilty upon the first count, but convicted him upon the second, and he was sentenced to detention in a Borstal Institution for a period of three years;

It appeared upon the trial of the accused that the bicycle lamp was stolen from McNally's bicycle while it was standing outside a shop at Carrickarnon, just outside the boundary of the Free State. When McNally discovered the theft, he communicated by telephone with the Civic Guards at the Bridge Street Barracks in Dundalk, and they, in consequence of this message, intercepted the accused and a companion who were coming along the road from the direction of Carrickarnon. The lamp was found in the possession of the appellant, and he was thereupon arrested and charged.

At the trial in the Circuit Court, Mr. O'Hagan, who represented the accused, objected to the jurisdiction, upon

the ground that each of the offences alleged was committed across the border. The learned Judge of the Circuit Court overruled the objection, and the jury, as stated, convicted the appellant on the count for receiving.

In the notice of application for leave to appeal the only grounds stated were the severity of the sentence, and that there was no evidence that the lamp was not the property of the accused. The accused was not professionally represented upon the application, but it appeared to the Court that it might be contended that there was no evidence to support a conviction for any offence committed within the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Saorstát, and that these Courts might have no jurisdiction to try a person accused of having committed an offence outside the boundary of the Saorstát, and the Court gave liberty to appeal, the appeal to be confined to the single question:"Whether the facts proved at the trial ousted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT