Convening Authority v O'Reilly

• Court: Courts-Martial Appeal Court
• Docket Number: 6CM/95
• Judge: O'Flaherty J.
• Judgment Date: 26 Jan 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Neutral Citation: 1997 WJSC-CMAC 611

1997 WJSC-CMAC 611

THE COURTS MARTIAL APPEAL COURT

O'Flaherty J.

Flood J.

McCracken J.

6CM/95

CONVENING AUTHORITY v. O'REILLY

AN CHUIRT ACHOMHAIRC ARM-CHUIRTEANNA

THE CONVENING AUTHORITY

Respondent

AND

PRIVAZE

ANTHONY O'REILLY

Appellant

Citations:

DEFENCE ACT 1954 S168(1)

DEFENCE ACT 1954 S168

O'CONNELL, STATE V FAWSITT 1986 IR 362

CAHALANE V MURPHY 1994 2 IR 277

DPP V BYRNE 1994 2 IR 254

RULES OF PROCEDURE (DEFENCE FORCES) 1954 SI 243/1954 RULE 17

RULES OF PROCEDURE (DEFENCE FORCES) 1954 SI 243/1954 RULE 18

DEFENCE ACT 1954 S123

BUCKLEY, APPL OF UNREP CMAC 28.7.93

Synopsis:

DEFENCE FORCES

Court-martial

Soldier - Offence - Trial - Delay - Prejudice - Absence - Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline - Using hashish abroad - Judicial knowledge of the nature of hashish - Defence Act, 1954 (No. 18), ss. 123, 168 - (6CM/95 - Courts-Martial Appeal Court - 2/1/96)

|Convening Authority v. O'Reilly|

1 Judgment of the Court delivered on the 26th day of January, 1996 by O'Flaherty J.

2 The appellant, Anthony O'Reilly, appeals from his conviction on five charges of being guilty of committing conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline contrary to section 168(1) of the Defence Act, 1954, as amended. The offences concerned buying, smoking, supplying and burning hashish while he was on a tour of duty in the Lebanon with UNIFIL between the 12th October, 1992 and 29th April,1993.

3 The appellant appeared before a limited Court Martial at Ceannt Barracks, Curragh Camp, Co. Kildare on the 7th September, 1995.

4 His conviction was based on a confession that he made and, while objection was taken to the admissibility of that confession in the course of the hearing, the Court Martial ruled in favour of admitting the confession statement.

5 Two points have been advanced on this appeal. The first is a claim that there was undue delay in the processing of the case and, secondly a submission that since there was no proper evidence as to the identity of the substance in question, offences under s. 168 of the 1954 Act had not been made out.

6 It was submitted before the Court Martial, and before us, that the delay in this case was excessive. The time-span within which the offences are alleged to have been committed has already been set forth; the appellant was first interviewed in November, 1993 and was formally charged in February, 1994.The summary of evidence was taken on the 15th and 28th...