DPP v O'Brien
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1969 |
| Date | 01 January 1969 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
(C.C.A.)
The People (Attorney General)
and
O'Brien
Identification of accused - Witness acquainted with the accused prior to date of alleged crime - Judge's charge -Necessity for warning the jury - Caution to be exercised in accepting visual identification -Failure to give such warning - Conviction -Appeal - New trial.
The accused was tried by a judge and jury on certain charges of burglary and larceny in and from a dwelling belonging to one Mary Grimes on 31st August, 1968. In the course of the trial...
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
177 cases
-
Curtin v Dáil Éireann
...(COMPELLABILITY, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF WITNESSES) ACT 1997 S6 CONSTITUTION ART 40.5 CONSTITUTION ART 40.3 AG, PEOPLE v O'BRIEN 1965 IR 142 TRIMBOLE v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1985 ILRM 465 1985 IR 550 OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30 BULA LTD v TARA MINES LTD 1994 1 ILR......
-
Re National Irish Bank Ltd
...(NO 3) 1993 2 IR 305 COMPANIES ACT 1990 S23 EAST DONEGAL CO-OP LTD V AG 1970 IR 317 ROCK V IRELAND 1998 2 ILRM 37 AG, PEOPLE V O'BRIEN 1965 IR 142 Synopsis Company Law Inspectors; investigation under the Companies Act, 1990; right to silence; self- incrimination; natural persons; trial in......
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Kelly & McGrath
...exercise of discretion”. (xiii) “ The correct approach is that expressed by Kingsmill Moore J. in People (Attorney General) v O'Brien [1965] I.R. 142, namely; the Court must take into account a broad range of circumstances before determining whether, on balance, the evidence should be admi......
-
State (Trimbole) v The Governor of Mountjoy Prison
...planned results of that invasion. Principles in The State (Quinn)v. RyanIR [1965] I.R. 70; The People (Attorney General) v. O'BrienIR [1965] I.R. 142 and The People v. LynchIR [1982] I.R. 64 affirmed. 2. The well recognised jurisdiction of the courts at common law to prevent an abuse of the......
Get Started for Free
10 books & journal articles
-
Public policy and private illegality in the pursuit of evidence
...Ibid. at 75.191. Ibid. at 77–78.192. Bunning vCross (1977–1978) 141 CLR 54 at 74–75. See also People (Attorney-General) vO’Brien [1965] IR 142 at 160;King vThe Queen [1969] 1 AC 304 at 315; Ridgeway vThe Queen (1994–1995) 184 CLR 19 at 54 (Brennan J), 73 (GaudronJ), 81 (McHugh J). See, furt......
-
Subject Index
...284, 286People vShaw [1982] IR1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212, 231People (AG)v Cummins [1972]IR 312 . . . . . . . 231People (AG)v O’Brien [1965]IR 142 . . . . . 228–229People (AG)v Taylor [1974]IR 97 . . . . . . . . . . . 226People (DPP)v Conroy [1986]IR 460. . . . . . . . . 221People (DPP)......
-
Subject Index
...Collins 438 P 2d 33, 68 Cal 2d 319 (1968). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119People (A-G)v O’Brien [1965]IR 142. . . . . . . 63, 64People (AG) v O’Callaghan [1966] IR 501. 182,188People (DPP)v Balfe [1998]4 IR 50 . . . . . . . . . . . 63People (DPP)v ......
-
Reconfiguring the Pre-Trial and Trial Processes in Ireland in the Fight against Organised Crime
...JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 229RECONFIGURING PRE-TRIALS AND TRIALS AGAINST ORGANISED CRIME IN IRELAND126 People (AG) vO’Brien [1965] IR 142 at 170. Walsh J stated that the imminent destruction of vitalevidence or the need to rescue a victim in peril constitutes extraordinary excusingcircums......
Get Started for Free