DPP v Farrell

 
FREE EXCERPT

2003 WJSC-CCA 4815

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

O'Flaherty J.

Keane J.

Lavan J.

No. 6/1990
DPP v. FARRELL
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v.
ANTHONY FARRELL
Applicant

Citations:

DPP V MADDEN 1977 IR 226

R V BAINBRIDGE 1960 1 QB 129

R V GAMBLE 1959 1 QB 11

DPP V O'SHEA (NO 2) 1988 ILRM 529

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT delivered on the
1

7th May 1990 by O'Flaherty J.

O'Flaherty J.
2

This is an application for leave to appeal against the conviction of the applicant by the Dublin Circuit (Criminal) Court before His Honour Judge Lynch and a jury on the 31st day of January, 1990 on a charge of larceny of property from J.C. Savages Supermarket, Swords, County Dublin, the property of Billy Harrington the supermarket manager. It was established in evidence that two men were seen by the manager stealing goods from the supermarket shelves on the 12th August, 1989. They then walked out of the store. Immediately thereafter they were seen to deposi the stolen goods in a car parked in the supermarket car-park and subsequently departed the scene on foot leaving behind the car and the stolen goods.

3

Detective Garda Patrick Kelly gave evidence that as a result of a phone call he went to the car-park and found the applicant huddled up on the back seat of the same car lying on his left side facing towards the back of the car giving the impression that he had been asleep. Garda Kelly described the stolen property as being all over the front of the passenger seat and on the floor between the back of the passenger seat and the back seat. He shook the applicant and asked him to account for the property. The applicant denied any knowledge of it. He was then arrested by Garda Kelly and brought to Swords Garda Station where he explained that he had been out of the car for some minutes and he suggested that the stolen goods may have been deposited in the car during this time without his knowledge. Ownership of the car was not established in evidence.

4

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on the following grounds:

5

1. That the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence and was perverse.

6

2. That the learned trial judge erred in law in refusing the application for a direction at the close of the prosecution case.

7

3. There was no sufficient evidence upon which the jury could reasonably return a verdict of guilty.

8

Counsel for the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL