Attorney General v Joyce

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date24 July 1929
Date24 July 1929
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal (Irish Free State)

Court of Crim. App.

Attorney-General v. Joyce & Walsh
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
and
MARTIN JOYCE
and
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
and
ANNIE WALSH (1)

Criminal appeal - Charge of murder - Two persons tried jointly - Applications for separate trials - Admissibility of evidence - Evidence of criminal act other than that charged - Whether statements made by one accused admissible against the other accused - Judge's charge - Whether jury misdirected as to weight and cogency of circumstantial evidence - Evidence given in Irish - Transcript in English - Sufficiency of transcript - Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act, 1924 (No. 37 of 1924), sect. 1 (f)(iii)

Two Criminal Appeals which were heard together.

Martin Joyce and Annie Walsh were tried together at the Central Criminal Court on the 17th to the 21st June, 1929, on the charge of having murdered Daniel Walsh, the husband of the said Annie Walsh, on the 30th day of May, 1928. They were convicted, and sentenced to death. Each had applied to the trial Judge (O'Byrne J.) for a separate trial, but the applications had been refused. At the conclusion of the trial each applied to the trial Judge for a certificate that his (or her) case was a fit case for appeal, but both these applications were refused. From the refusal of this certificate each of the accused appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal to grant leave to appeal.

The grounds upon which the appellant, Martin Joyce, applied were as follows:—

"1. That I was prejudiced in my defence by being tried jointly with the accused, Annie Walsh, and by the refusal of the learned Judge to grant a separate trial of my case.

2. That evidence was improperly admitted purporting to prove the commission of a separate felony, viz.:—a previous attempt to poison the deceased, Daniel Walsh, by me.

3. That the learned Judge misdirected the jury as to the weight and cogency of circumstantial evidence.

4. That the learned Judge should have directed the jury that the evidence of Annie Walsh was not admissible against me.

5. That the learned Judge should have specifically directed the jury as to each portion of the evidence not admissible against me."

The grounds upon which the appellant, Annie Walsh, sought leave to appeal were similar to those of the appellant, Martin Joyce, above set out, but contained the two following additional grounds:—

"6. That the learned trial Judge was wrong in directing the jury that the walking-stick found on the bank of the stream wherein the body of the deceased, Daniel Walsh, was found drowned must be assumed to be the deceased man's walking-stick in the absence of any evidence as to the ownership of the said walking-stick.

7. That the learned trial Judge failed to direct the jury as to the proper weight to be attached to the evidence of the children, and failed to point out to the jury that the said children admitted in cross-examination that they had made false and/or different statements when examined before the District Justice in the preliminary stages of the trial."

Before these applications for leave to appeal were heard each of the appellants moved the Court for leave to amend their respective notices of application for leave to appeal by the addition of further grounds, and these two motions were first heard by the Court.

The additional grounds which the appellant, Martin Joyce, sought leave to add to his notice were as follows:—

"1. That no report was made by any official stenographer present at the trial; that the record is partial, incomplete, and therefore inaccurate; and that, whereas at the trial nine witnesses for the prosecution gave their evidence exclusively in the Irish language, and the accused [Martin Joyce] and Annie Walsh, who was tried with him, gave their evidence exclusively in the Irish language, no transcript of any such evidence was taken; and the record of the proceedings consists of a stenographer's note of an interpreter's version in English of the said evidence given in Irish.

2. That the evidence given at the trial in the Irish language was not accurately reproduced nor adequately conveyed to the jury in the English language."

The appellant, Annie Walsh, also sought to rely on similar additional grounds under the circumstances set out in the judgment of the Chief Justice, and in this judgment are also set out the further facts of the case relative to these two motions.

The two applications for leave to appeal were then heard.

A man and a woman were tried jointly on the charge of having murdered the husband of the woman. They were convicted and sentenced to death. The trial Judge refused to grant a certificate to either of them that the case was a fit one for appeal. Both of them appealed from this refusal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Each of the accused had applied to the trial Judge for a separate trial, on the ground that statements had been made by each which would be admissible in evidence against the person making the statements, but which tended to incriminate the other accused, against whom the statements would be inadmissible. The trial Judge had refused the applications.

Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal, on the facts, that the refusal of the trial Judge to grant separate trials did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, and afforded no ground of appeal.

Objection having been taken that evidence was improperly admitted purporting to prove the commission of a separate felony, viz.:—a previous attempt to poison the deceased:

Held that the fact that the accused man, to the knowledge of the accused woman, put guano into the milk which was used by the deceased was admissible in evidence against them, as it formed part of one entire transaction which was under investigation by the jury; and it presented one aspect of the relations existing between the two accused and the deceased, just as the intrigue between the two accused and the attempts to conceal it illustrated another.

Alternatively, this evidence was objected to on the ground that the discussion which took place in the hearing of the jury as to the admissibility of the evidence suggested to the jury that the evidence established an attempt to cause the death of the deceased by the administration of a poisonous substance, and that in fact no evidence was given to prove that guano was poisonous:

Held that, as this evidence was not at any stage of the trial described as proving or intended to prove an attempt to poison the deceased, but as evidence of an act indicating the attitude of hostility of the two accused towards the deceased, there was no reason to assume that it was received by the jury in any other sense.

Held also that the evidence of each of the accused was admissible against the other, and the trial Judge was right in refusing to give a direction to the contrary.

Held further that the trial Judge had not misdirected the jury as to the weight and cogency of the circumstantial evidence.

Part of the evidence was given in Irish, which was translated into English, so that it might be understood by the Judge, the jury, and others concerned in the case. This evidence was not officially recorded in Irish as given, but only as it was translated into English, and objection to the

transcript was taken on behalf of the accused, who sought leave to amend their notices of application for leave to appeal (which had already been served) by including this objection.

Held that, as it is not an essential requisite for the purpose of an application for leave to appeal to have a complete transcript or any transcript of the evidence before the Court, and the Court, being satisfied that the transcript of the note of the interpreter's rendering of the evidence was a completely accurate record and fully adequate for the purpose of disposing of the applications for leave to appeal, and having regard to all the facts, refused to allow the notices of application for leave to appeal to be amended.

Cur. adv. vult.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by Kennedy C.J.:

These are applications for leave to appeal against convictions taken on behalf of the two defendants, who were tried jointly on the charge of having murdered the husband of the female defendant. The learned trial Judge refused to grant a certificate to either prisoner that the case was a fit one for appeal.

The appellants have now moved the Court for leave to amend their respective notices of application for leave to appeal by the addition of further grounds of appeal, and it is with these motions only that I am concerned in the present judgment.

Notice was duly served on behalf of Martin Joyce setting out the additional grounds which he sought leave to add to his notice of appeal. These grounds were two, namely:—

"1. That no report was made by any official stenographer present at the trial; that the record is partial, incomplete, and therefore inaccurate; and that, whereas at the trial nine witnesses for the prosecution gave their evidence exclusively in the Irish language, and the accused (Martin Joyce) and Annie Walsh, who was tried with him, gave their evidence exclusively in the Irish language, no transcript of any such evidence was taken; and the record of the proceedings consists of a stenographer's note of an interpreter's version in English of the said evidence given in Irish.

2. That the evidence given at the trial in the Irish language was not accurately reproduced nor adequately conveyed to the jury in the English language."

No notice of application for leave to add grounds was served on behalf of Annie Walsh, but a notice was served on the Registrar of the Court and on the Chief State Solicitor, declaring her intention to rely upon certain additional grounds of appeal, which included, amongst others, the two which I have quoted from the notice served on behalf of Martin Joyce. The Court has in the special circumstances of the case permitted the notice served on behalf of Annie Walsh to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • DPP v Cummins
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 23 March 2017
    ...material which it was anticipated might emanate from the co-accused. The DPP refers to the case of Attorney General v. Joyce & Walsh [1929] I.R. 526, a case also referred to by counsel for the appellant in the course of his submission, and in particular the DPP refers to the statement at p.......
  • DPP v Nevin
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 14 March 2003
    ...JUSTICE (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1924 S6(3) INDICTMENT ACT 1915 S5(3) (UK) DPP, PEOPLE V B(K) 2000 2 IR 199 AG V MARTIN JOYCE & WALSH 1929 IR 526 R V BOND 1906 2 KB 389 R V HAGAN 1873 12 COX CC 357 R V BALL 1911 AC 47 1 14th day of March 2003 by Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Geoghegan 2 This is a......
  • DPP v Anthony McCarthy and Others
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 25 July 2007
    ...- Accomplice evidence - Whether trial judge correct in deciding insufficient evidence to render witness accomplice - AG v Joyce & Walsh [1929] IR 526 applied; Davies v DPP [1954] AC 378, People (AG) v Carney [1955] IR 324 and People (DPP) v Diemling (Unrep, CCA, 4/5/1992) distinguished - ......
  • People (Attorney General) v Carney and Another
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 21 October 1955
    ...the Court ordered a re-trial on the second count. Attorney-General v. Finegan,IR [1933] I.R. 292; Attorney-General v. Joyce and WalshIR [1929] I.R. 526; Attorney-General v. LinehanIR [1929] I.R. 19 and the judgments of Pollock C. B. and Blackburn J. in R. v. LangmeadENR 1 Le. & Ca. 427 at p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • An Mithid Duinn an Truicear a Tharraingt ar Airteagal 8.3 de Bhunreacht na hÉireann 1937?
    • Ireland
    • Cork Online Law Review No. 19-2020, January 2020
    • 1 January 2020
    ...‘i gcás an tUachtarán do chur a láimhe le téacs Bille i dteanga de na teangacha oifigiúla 18 People (Attorney General) v Joyce and Walsh [1929] IR 526. 19 Stát (MacFhearraigh v MacGamhnia [1980–1998] TÉTS 29. 20 Ó Cadhla v an tAire Dlí agus Cirt [2019] IEHC 503. 21 ibid . 22 Stát (Mac Fhear......
  • Case Note: Gaeilge Bhriste? Irish Language Rights in Ó Maicín v Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. XVIII-2015, January 2015
    • 1 January 2015
    ...Cuimsitheach Teangeolaíochta ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht (Stationery Office, Dublin, 2007). 6 Attorney General v Joyce and Walsh [1929] IR 526; The State (Buchan) v Coyne (1936) 70 ILTR 185; The State (Ó Conghaile) v Governor of Limerick Prison , The Irish Independent, 3 February 1937......
  • Interpreting criminal justice: a preliminary look at language, law and crime in Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 2-9, July 2009
    • 1 July 2009
    ...2003 and the District Court: A Personal View-from a Judicial Pers pective” (n. 69 above) at 148. 72 Attorney-General v. Joyce and Walsh [1929] I.R. 526, per Kennedy C.J. 2009] Language, Law and Crime in Ireland 59 trial, rather than the right to use one’s mother tongue; the U.N. Human Right......
  • Breaking the language barrier: access to justice in the New Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 2-7, July 2007
    • 1 July 2007
    ...in the case of foreign suspects; and evaluation and monitoring (Consultation procedure CNS 2004/0113): http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg. 19 [1929] I.R. 526 (S.C.). 20 [1929] I.R. 526, at 531 (S.C.). The right to the assistance of an interpreter may be seen as an element of the due process righ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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