Attorney General v O'Sullivan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1930 |
| Date | 26 May 1930 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal (Irish Free State) |
[C. C. A., I.F.S.]
Attorney-General
and
O'Sullivan
Complainant aged 10 years - Sworn testimony - Necessity of preliminary examination as to competency - Corroboration - Instructions to jury - Attack on character in cross-examination - Admissibility of evidence of general good character - Form of evidence -Inconsistency of findings - Children Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 67), ss. 30, 131 - Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (4 5 Geo. 5, c. 58), s. 28 (2).
The appellant was convicted of an attempt to commit sodomy. He was found "not guilty" on a second count of indecent assault on a male person, and, on a third count of common assault, no finding was entered. The complainant, a boy of 10 years, gave sworn testimony. The appellant applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal. The appellant contended that the complainant, being a child under the age of 14 years, should not have been allowed to give evidence...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
11 cases
-
DPP v Mulvey
...danger of convicting in the absence of corroboration. Attorney Gerneral v. CraddenIR [1955] I.R. 130; Attorney General v. O'SullivanIR [1930] I.R. 552 and Reg. v. KnightWLR [1966] 1 W.L.R. 230 followed. 3. That in the instant case the jury was told of its role in assessing what was corrobor......
-
Southern Health Board v CH
...as if the Act of 1908 had not been affected by the Act of 1991. Cases referred to in this report:— Attorney General v. O'Sullivan [1930] I.R. 552; (1930) 64 I.L.T.R. 181. In re P.B., a minor [1986] N.T. 88. Bradford City Metropolitan Council v. K. [1990] 2 W.L.R. 532. Director of Public Pro......
-
DPP v Gilligan
...DENTAL BOARD v O'CALLAGHAN 1969 IR 181 R v BASKERVILLE 1916 2 KB 658 AG v LEVISON 1932 IR 158 R v KILBOURNE 1973 AC 729 AG v O'SULLIVAN 1930 IR 552 R v HESTER 1973 AC 295 AG OF HONG KONG v WONG MUK PING 1987 1 AC 501 PEOPLE v TRAYERS 1956 IR 110 AG v O'BRIEN 1965 IR 142 MCCORMACK, STAT......
-
DPP v E.C.
...v. Murphy [2005] 2 I.R. 125; The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Gilligan [2006] 1 I.R. 107; Attorney General v. O'Sullivan [1930] I.R. 552; and Attorney General v. McGrath (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 15th June, 1925 – referred to in Sandes, Criminal Practice, Procedu......
Get Started for Free