DPP v Buckley

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C. J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1990
• Neutral Citation: 1989 WJSC-CCA 1243
• Docket Number: [1987 No. 78 C.C.A.],78/87
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 01 January 1990

DPP v. BUCKLEY

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS

v.

NICHOLAS BUCKLEY

1989 WJSC-CCA 1243

78/87

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Synopsis:

EVIDENCE

Admissibility

Statement - Voluntariness - Suspect - Incrimination - Interrogation at three sessions - Admission made at each session - Admissions at first two sessions rules inadmissible - Relevance of rulings to evidence of admission made at third session - Third statement admissible as others ruled inadmissible on grounds other than oppression, threat or inducement - (1987/78 - C.C.A. - 31/7/89) - [1990] 1 I.R. 14

|The People v. Buckley|

CRIMINAL LAW

Evidence

Admissibility - Accused - Statement - Voluntariness - Incrimination - Interrogation of suspect - Several statement made - First two statements ruled inadmissible - Relevance of rulings on admissiblility of third statement - Conviction upheld - Held that the court of trial had acted correctly in admitting evidence of the admissions made by the applicant on the third occasion since his earlier admissions had been ruled inadmissible on grounds other than oppression, threat or inducement - (1987/78 - C.C.A. - 31/7/89) - [1990] 1 I.R. 14

|The People v. Buckley|

Citations:

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30

DPP, PEOPLE V LYNCH 1982 IR 64, 1981 ILRM 389

REX V MEYNELL 1834 2 LEW CC 122

REG V ROSA RUE 1876 13 COX CC 209

REG V SMITH 1959 2 QB 35

AG, PEOPLE V GALVIN 1964 IR 325

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT delivered the 31st day of July1989by FINLAY C. J.

2 This is an application for leave to appeal against a conviction entered after trial in the Special Criminal Court on the 24th June 1987 against the Applicant in respect of the offence of robbery.

3 Four grounds of appeal were submitted on behalf of the Applicant but the issue arising in the case was in effect argued on ground No. 1 of those grounds, which was in the following terms:

"1. That the Special Criminal Court erred in law in holding that the alleged verbal admissions made by the accused to Detective Garda Mahony and Detective Sergeant Kevin Dillon were admissible inevidence."

4 The Applicant was arrested pursuant to Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939on suspicion of having committed a scheduled offence under the Firearms Act, being the use of firearms in connection with the robbery. He was then brought to Tralee Garda Station and was interviewed by a number of members of the Garda Siochana.

5 Relevant to the issues arising in this case are three interviews. The first of those was an interview with Gardai Hanley and Walsh, at which there was supplied to the Applicant a statement alleged to have been made by one of his co-accused, Mr. Galvin. Upon being given that statement the Applicant on the evidence asked the Gardai to read it to him and they did so. After the conclusion of the reading the Applicant asked the Gardai certain questions concerning the statement and after that he was asked by the members of the Gardai present to tell the truth. Having been so asked, he made the remark: "Haven't ye got the story there?"

6 This verbal admission was ruled as inadmissible by the Special Criminal Court on the grounds that the requestby the Gardai to the Applicant after the reading of the statement by his fellow accused constituted an invitation to make a reply to that statement and that accordingly it was in breach...