Attorney General v Messitt
1965 WJSC-CCA 1964
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Judgment of Court of Criminal Appeal delivered 17th December, 1969McLoughlin J .
The applicant, Patrick Messitt, was tried before Judge McGivern and a jury in the Dublin Circuit Court on the 16th October, 1969, and found guilty on the first count of an Indictment of wounding Anthony Cullen on the face with intent to do him grevious bodily harm, or to maim, disfigure or disable him.
At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Sorohan, Counsel for the applicant at his trial applied for a certificate of leave on the grounds that the verdict was against the evidence, against the weight of the evidence and that the sentence, eighteen months imprisonment with hard labour, was excessive. The application was refused.
The applicant now applies for leave to appeal to this Court. His application was originally based on one ground only, stated in his notice of application as "not sufficient evidence." In a notice of application to amend and extend the grounds seven grounds were set out; of these numbers 1,4, and 6 were either abandoned or not argued. Mr. Mackey, his counsel in this Court, was permitted to argue some further grounds.
Ground No. 2 of the notice to amend is as follows:- "The "learned trial Judge failed, or alternatively, failed adequately to "warn the jury of the danger of convicting on the evidence of visual "identification of a single witness: "On this ground the Court was Mr. Justice Kingsmill Moore in Attorney General v. Casey 1963I.R.33. That judgment makes it imperative that, in a criminal case, the judge warn the jury of the dangers of mistake occurring in the visual identification of an accused person and indicated the nature of the warning that should be given. The transcript in this case shows that the learned trial judge did warn the jury as to the care with which the jury should approach the issue of visual identification; though not in the exact of Mr. Justice Kingsmill Moore but conveying the full sense and substance of the warning that should be given and his charge to the jury cannot, in the view of this Court, be faulted on that ground.
Even if this were not so, the Court is of...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL