DPP v Farrell
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Flaherty J. |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1990 |
| Neutral Citation | 2003 WJSC-CCA 4815 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Date | 07 May 1990 |
2003 WJSC-CCA 4815
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
O'Flaherty J.
Keane J.
Lavan J.
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
7th May1990by O'Flaherty J.
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 leavingbehind the car and the stolen goods.
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.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on the following grounds:
1. That the verdict of the jury was contrary to theweight of the evidence and was perverse.
2. That the learned trial judge erred in law in refusing the application for a direction at the close of the prosecution case.
3. There was no sufficient evidence upon which the jury could reasonably return a verdict of guilty.
Counsel for the applicant applied to the trial judge at the close of the prosecution case that the case be withdrawn from the jury. This application was refused. The applicant did not give evidence at thetrial.
It is accepted that the applicant was not one of those who actually stole from the shop, but it is alleged that he was in the nature of being an aider and abettor to the crime and that he was acting in concert with those who had stolen the goods. The principles of law governing the notion of acting in concert in a criminal matter are set out in the People (D.P.P.) v. Madden a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal reported at 1977 I.R. 226. The relevant passage of the judgment of the Court delivered by the then Chief Justice O'Higgins appears at p. 341 of the report:
"In relation to a charge of aiding and abetting, it is clear from the cited judgments in Bainbridge's Case (1) and Gamble's Case (2) that motives and desires are irrelevant, and that mere evidence of common association is insufficient. The kernel of the matter is the establishing of an activity on the part of the accused from which his intentions may be inferred and the effect of which is to assist the principal in the commission of the crime proved to have been committed by the principal, or the commission of a crime of a similar nature known to the accused to be the intention of the principal when assisting him."
It is conceded by Mr. Leahy counsel for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial