DPP v Gaffey

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Flaherty J.
• Judgment Date: 10 December 1990
• Neutral Citation: 2003 WJSC-CCA 3490
• Docket Number: No. 104A/1990
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 10 December 1990

2003 WJSC-CCA 3490

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

O'Flaherty J.

Lynch J.

Johnson J.

No. 104A/1990

DPP v. GAFFEY

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS

v.

JAMES GAFFEY

Applicant

Citations:

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S48

CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) ACT 1981 S2

AG V CASHELL 1928 62 ILTR 31

AG PEOPLE V HAYDEN 1 FREWEN 347

DPP V SMITH UNREP O'FLAHERTY 2.4.1990 (EX TEMPORE)

DPP V EGAN 1990 ILRM 780 1990/2/360

1 Ex tempore judgment of the Court delivered on the 10th day of December 1990 by O'Flaherty J.

2 In this case the applicant was convicted before judge and jury, his Honour Judge Deery presiding, at Sligo Circuit Court on the 14th November last of rape contrary to s. 48 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 and s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981and he applies to this Court for bail pending his appeal. TheCourt"s jurisdiction to grant bail has been described in a number of cases such as Attorney General v. Cashell [1928] 62 I.L.T.R. p. 31 and the case of The People v. Hayden which is unreported but which is noted in Vol. 1 of the late Mr. Frewen"s Collected Cases and both of which caseswere cited in a decision of this Court in D.P.P. v. Ian Smithin which judgment was delivered on the 2nd April, 1990. To quote from Hayden:

"In determining whether leave to appeal should be granted the Court of trial and this Court on appeal is required to determine whether an arguable case can be presented for a reconsideration of the case on appeal. This is the duty which this Court has to perform as a preliminary step to entertaining an application for bail."

3 We would wish to put this qualification on that quotation to say that this Court, hearing an application at this stage, must determine whether an arguable case can be presented on the materials now before the particular members of this Court. I think Mr. Groarke has very fairly conceded that there is difficulty in attempting that when one cannot isolate a particular net point and one has to rely on alleged misdirections by the learned trial judge, especially in relation to corroboration. It isnecessary, of course, to give a warning in relation to uncorroborated evidence in a case such as this. A jury must be told that, of course, if they are satisfied of the guilt of the accused they are free to convict and this jurisprudence was reaffirmed in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Director of Public...