DPP v Brophy
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 1970 |
| Neutral Citation | 1965 WJSC-CCA 508 |
| Date | 22 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | 49/1969 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
1965 WJSC-CCA 508
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Judgment delivered 22nd October, 1970.
The Appellant was on the 28th November, 1969, convicted of the non-capital murder of Anna Porter. The trial Judge granted a Certificate for leave to appeal on the ground:
1. That the learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in law and in fact in admitting as evidence in the case party of the entry of a diary, the property of the accused dated the 10th day of February 1969 which said diary was seized by the Gardai at the residence of the accused.
The Appellant in his notice of appeal indicated that leave would be sought to argue additional grounds of appeal, and he was permitted to ???query??????. The grounds put forwarn were sixteen in number, but, apart from the ground on which leave to appeal was granted, were reduced by Counsel to five main grounds. These were on the following lines:
1. That the trial judge did not put the defence to the jury adequately or at all.
2. That the trial Judge failed to define manslaughter in his charge to the jury and when requested to do so by the jury.
3. That the trial Judge wrongly contrasted the unswron statement of the accused at the trial with his statement to the Gardai on the night of the death of the deceased.
4. That the trial Judge failed to tell the juiry of the whose of the conversation between Superintendent McDonnell and the Appellant following a question put by the jury in the following terms: "We would like again the have the full reply made by the accused when asked by Superintendent McDonnell did you have a black-out?""
5. That the trial Judge was wrong in invinting the jury to speculate as to the relationship between the Appellant and the deceased immediately prior to the death of the deceased.
Counsel for the Appellant, on the ground of appeal contained in the Certificate, did not in this Court seek to argue that entries in the disries of the accused should not have been admitted at the trial, but complained that the whole of the entries were not admitted. Counsel for the accused had at the trial objected to the admission of the entries on the ground that they contained matter prejudicial to the accused. The trial Judge allowed the entries to be put in evidence, but excluded part which contained matter which might have a prejudicial effect, and appeared to have no probative value relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial