DPP v Ferris

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C.J.
• Judgment Date: 15 December 1986
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-CCA 398
• Docket Number: 112/85,(100/84)
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 15 December 1986

1986 WJSC-CCA 398

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

McCarthy J.

Barron J.

Barr J.

(100/84)

(102/84)

DPP v. FERRIS

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v.

MARTIN FERRIS, JOHN P. CRAWLEY AND MICHAEL BROWN

Citations:

AG, PEOPLE V MCDERMOTT 2 FREWEN 211

CONSTITUTION ART 2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1976 S2

DIR 80/181/EEC

DIR 80/181/EEC ART 1

DIR 80/181/EEC ART 1(c)

DIR 80/181/EEC ART 2

DIR 80/181/EEC ART 2(a)

DPP, PEOPLE V QUILLIGAN 1987 ILRM 606, 1986 IR 495

DPP, PEOPLE V SHAW 1982 IR 1

DPP, PEOPLE V WALSH 1980 IR 294

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (UNITS OF MEASUREMENT) REGS SI 235/1983

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883 S4

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883 S7(1)

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S21

FIREARMS ACTS 1964–1971

HEALY, STATE V O'DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325, 110 ILTR 9, 112 ILTR 37

MARITIME JURISDICTION ACT 1959 (CHARTS) ORDER 1959 SI 174/1959

MARITIME JURISDICTION ACT 1959 S13

MARITIME JURISDICTION ACT 1959 S2

MARITIME JURISDICTION ACT 1959 S3

MARITIME JURISDICTION ACT 1959 S4

MINISTERS & SECRETARIES ACT 1924 S6

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S29

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT 1974 S3

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT 1974 S4(3)

R V BATES 1911 1 KB 964 6 CAR 153

TREATY OF ROME ART 177

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Arrest

Reason - Disclosure - Adequacy - Arrest pursuant to s.30 of Act of 1939 - Arresting garda informed accused at time of arrest that arrest was made on suspicion that scheduled offence had been committed, namely, "possession of firearms" - Possession of firearms ~simpliciter~ not an offence - Accused arrested on board motor vessel with cargo of firearms, ammunition and explosives - Held that arrest was lawful - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, s.30 - (100-102/84 - C.C.A. - 15/12/86) - 3 Frewen 114

|The People v. Ferris|

CRIMINAL LAW

Offence

Location - Territorial seas - Place proved by reference to charts - Charts prima facie evidence of extent of territorial seas - ~See~ Evidence, proof - (100-102/84 - C.C.A. - 15/12/86)3 Frewen 114

|The People v. Ferris|

EVIDENCE

Proof

Territorial seas - Motor vessel - Arrest - Vessel arrested off Great Skellig by Naval Service - Gardai found vessel to be carrying cargo of firearms, ammunition and explosives - Accused arrested on board vessel - Special Criminal Court found accused guilty of (inter alia) possession of explosive substances contrary to s.4 of Act of 1883 - Accused applied for liberty to appeal against his conviction and sentence - Held that the search of the vessel was not made unlawful by the gardai being assisted by members of the Naval Service - Held that the provisions of s.7(1) of the Act of 1883 relating to the certificate required by that sub-section do not apply where the accused is first charged before a Special Criminal Court - Held that the chart adduced in evidence at the trial was admissible pursuant to s.13 of the Act of 1959 since it had been established that the chart had been issued with the authority of the Admiralty, London, and thus came within the relevant article of the Order of 1959 - Held that the use of the term "nautical mile" in ss.2, 3, 4 of the Act of 1959 was not affected by Council Directive 80/181/EEC of 20/12/79 - Held that the issue whether the use of that term in the Act of 1959 was compatible with that Directive was not an issue which could be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities under Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome - Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959 (Charts) Order, 1959 - Explosive Substances Act, 1883, s.7 - Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1959, s.13 - (100-102/84 - C.C.A. - 15/12/86) - 3 Frewen 114

|The People v. Ferris|

JUDGMENT delivered the 15th December 1986

1 On the 29th September 1984 units of the Naval Service intercepted a motor vessel, the Marita Ann, in the waters off the Great Skellig, called on the vessel by megaphone to halt and fired tracer rounds; the vessel was stopped and boarded by a party, including Garda Inspector Ryan and Detective Garda McGillicuddy who were on board L/E Emer; the Marita Ann was escorted to Haulbowline in Cork Harbour. At the time it was stopped, there was on board the Marita Ann a large quantity of firearms, ammunition and explosives. The three applicants and two other men were all on board the Marita Ann at the time she was stopped and taken under escort to Haulbowline. All of those on board were charged before the Special Criminal Court with offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1883 and the Firearms Act,1925as amended by the Firearms Acts 1964–1971and the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act,1976. All the accused were found guilty of

2 (a) possession of explosive substances contrary to s. 4 of the Act of 1883

3 (b) possession of firearms and ammunition with intent to enable other persons to endanger life

4 (c) possession of an F.N. rifle and an M 1 carbine and ammunition therefor with intent to endanger life.

5 They were acquitted of a charge of possession with intent to endanger life of the entire quantity of firearms and ammunition, the distinction being that the two weapons specified had been prepared for use and had clips of ammunition nearby.

6 Each of the accused was, at the trial, represented by Senior and Junior Counsel and, having been refused leave to appeal by the Special Criminal Court, served notice of application to this Court for such leave and, in support of such application filed elaborate grounds of appeal, numbering 47 in the case of Martin Ferris, 47 in the case of John P. Crawley and 17 in the case of Michael Brown.

7 At the commencement of the hearing, in the case of Martin Ferris, it was stated that the grounds relied upon were numbers 4 to 14, dealing with the admiralty charts, and 27 to 29, dealing with the search of the vessel and the arrest of the applicant. It later transpired that this applicant wished to rely also upon grounds 1, 15–19 and 30–33.

8 Counsel for Michael Brown confined his argument to grounds 4 and 5, the admissibility of the charts, and 15, which rested upon an observation made by the President of the Special Criminal Court at the commencement of the trial. Counsel for John P. Crawley confined himself to grounds 37 and 38, which rested upon the same argument as ground 15 of Michael Brown. On the second day of the hearing Counsel for Michael Brown and John P. Crawley stated that they were expressly instructed to adopt all the arguments advanced on behalf of all of the applicants; the Court invited Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions to deal with all of these argued grounds of appeal, save 1, but his arguments did not evoke a response on behalf of any of the applicants. The task of this Court has not been helped by this method of presentation of these applications; the task is, however, untrammelled by any consideration of merit. The guilt of each of the applicants is clear beyond question; the issue is whether or not there were technical defects in the proof of that guilt. The Court is satisfied that there were not and the applications for leave to appeal will be dismissed. It is necessary, however, to deal with each of the matters advanced in argument, in so far as the Court can appreciate the nature of the argument. Since each of the applicants, through his Counsel, adopted the arguments of his fellows, it is unnecessary to distinguish between any of the applicants in respect of any of these arguments which, themselves, being entirely of a legal and technical nature are the responsibility of those presenting the arguments.

9 1. That the Certificate of the Director of Public Prosecutions required by s. 7(1) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1883 had not been furnished to the Special Criminal Court.

10 S. 7(1) applies where a person is charged before a Justice; these applicants were charged before the Special Criminal Court, In fact, Counsel for the Director expressly conveyed to the Court the consent of the Director to the charge under the Explosive Substances Act being disposed of in the Special Criminal Court (Book I p. 26). The powers of the Attorney General for Ireland were conferred upon the Attorney General of Saorstat Eireann by s.6 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act,1924, and thence on the Attorney General established by the Constitution all of whose functions capable of being performed in relation to criminal matters are, pursuant to s. 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act,1974, to be performed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. S. 4(3) of the 1974 Act provides that the fact that the function of a law officer has been performed by him … may be established, without further proof, in any proceedings by a statement of that fact made … orally to the Court concerned by a person appearing on behalf of or prosecuting in the name of the law officer. The requirement of s. 7(1) of the 1883 Act, by definition, cannot apply to a prosecution before the Special Criminal Court, where, as in the instant case, those charged were brought before the Special Criminal Court in the first instance. It is only the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions who can bring proceedings in the Special Criminal Court; the weakness of this ground; of appeal is all too apparent. When the argument was advanced at the trial, Counsel for John P. Crawley referred to R. v. Bates1. It was a

case where the accused, prosecuted by the King in the first instance, was brought before a Justice; it has nothing to do with this case.

11 The offences were charged to have been committed "off the Great Skellig Rock, within the State". Evidence was, accordingly, led to establish that this particular area, where the vessel was stopped and the applicants arrested, is within the territorial seas being part of the national territory as defined by Art. 2 of the Constitution. The territorial seas of the State, for the purposes of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act,1959, are that portion...