DPP v Maughan

JurisdictionIreland
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
JudgeBlayney J.
Judgment Date04 May 1995
Neutral Citation1995 WJSC-CCA 4381
Docket Number[C.C.A. No. 69 of 1993]
Date04 May 1995

1995 WJSC-CCA 4381

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Blayney J.

Barron J.

Budd J.

69/93
DPP v. MAUGHAN
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v.
MICHAEL MAUGHAN
Applicant

Citations:

LARCENY ACT 1916 S23(B)

CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) ACT 1976 S7

CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1976 S11

LARCENY ACT 1916 S31(1)

LARCENY ACT 1990 S3

ARCHBOLD (1993) PARA 7–66

AG V BYRNE 1 FREWEN 303

R V MCKECHNIE 94 CAR 51

R V DRURY 1971 56 CAR 104

R V DURANTE 1971 56 CAR 708, 1972 1 WLR 1612

R V STONE 1977 QB 354

R V HUNT 1968 52 CAR 580

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Jury

Verdicts - Inconsistency - Goods - Theft - Charges - Burglary and handling stolen goods - Alternative counts - Convictions on both counts set aside - (69/93 - Court of Criminal Appeal - 4/5/95)

|The People v. Maughan|

JURY

Verdicts

Inconsistency - Indictment - Counts - Alternatives - Burglary and handling stolen goods - Convictions on both counts despite clear direction by trial judge - Convictions set aside - (69/93 - Court of Criminal Appeal - 4/5/95)

|The People v. Maughan|

1

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 4th day of May 1995 by Blayney J.

2

The applicant was convicted in the Dublin Circuit Court on the 10th December 1992 on three separate counts: firstly, aggravated burglary contrary to s. 23(B) of the Larceny Act, 1916 as inserted by s. 7 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976; secondly, false imprisonment, contrary to s. 11 of the Criminal Law Act, 1976, and finally, handling stolen property contrary to s. 31(1) of the Larceny Act, 1916 as substituted by s. 3 of the Larceny Act, 1990.On the 18th January 1993 he was sentenced to 5½ years imprisonment on counts 1 and 2, the sentences to be concurrent and to date from the 9th June 1992. Leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence was refused and the applicant now applies to this Court for such leave.

3

The facts out of which the charges arose may be briefly stated. At approximately 6 a.m. on the morning of the 11th October 1991 two men broke into the house of Mr. Thomas Tomkin who lives at 7 Mespil Road. Mr. Tomkin awoke to find them in his bedroom. They both had knives. They put him on the ground and tied him to one of the bedposts of the bed with his hands behind him and his mouth gagged. They then took a walkman, a camera, a video recorder, a Timex watch, and approximately £200 in cash. A bottle of Hennessy brandy was also stolen.

4

If is not clear how long the two men spent in Mr. Tomkin's house, but they appear to have left just before dawn. The applicant was seen by a member of the guards walking along the canal on the side opposite Mespil Road at about 6.40 a.m. and he was arrested a relatively short time after that at the I.D.A. building in Wilton Place.

5

It was proved that at the time of his arrest he had in his possession the bottle of Hennessy brandy which had been stolen from Mr. Tomkin and also a piece of glass which had been broken off a chandelier in Mr. Tomkin's house. Mr. Tomkin was unable to give any evidence identifying the applicant as one of the two men who had broken into his house and the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence to prove the applicant's guilt.

6

The principal ground of appeal relied upon by the counsel for the applicant was that "the verdicts of guilty returned in respect of counts 1 and 2 in the indictment were (in all the circumstances of the case) inconsistent with the verdict of guilty returned in respect of count 3 thereof." Counsel submitted that the applicant could not in law be guilty both on count 1 of an offence which involved theft, and on count 3 which related to the handling of stolen property. The verdicts were accordingly inconsistent and the applicant was entitled to have them quashed.

7

In support of his submission counsel cited the following passage from Archbold (1993 edition) at paragraph 7–66:

"An appellant who seeks to obtain the quashing of a conviction on the ground that the verdict against him was inconsistent with his acquittal on another count has a burden cast upon him to show not merely that the verdicts on the two counts were inconsistent, but that they were so inconsistent as to call for interference by an appellate court. The Court will interfere if it is satisfied that no reasonable jury who had applied their mind properly to the facts in the case could have arrived at the conclusion which was reached."

8

Counsel also referred to the case of The Attorney General v. James Byrne which is reported in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • DPP v O'Reilly Commercials Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 3 October 2018
    ...v Twesigye [2015] IECA 99, where we considered the earlier authority of The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Maugham [1995] 1 IR 304, and said: '79. It is clear from this detailed extract from the judgment in Maughan that counsel for the respondent is correct in his contention t......
  • DPP v Gibbons
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 27 July 2022
    ...verdict as “rare and exceptional.” 24 Further, the respondent distinguishes the present case from the cases of The People (DPP) v Maughan [1995] IR 304 and Hearns. In Maughan, the jury were directed that the counts on the indictment were alternatives and nevertheless, convicted on each and ......
  • DPP v B.F.
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 17 July 2017
    ...penis inside me but again it was the same problem.’ 22 The appellant relies on The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Maughan [1995] 1 IR 304 as authority for the proposition that an inconsistent jury verdict should be set aside where it is established that no reasonable jury could......
  • DPP v Hearns
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 6 July 2020
    ...they did.’ The Court of Criminal Appeal in this jurisdiction has adopted a similar approach, as reflected in People (DPP) v Maughan [ [1995] 1 I.R. 304] and People (DPP) v Sweeney [ [2007] IECCA 44]. Inconsistency was found in Maughan where the jury, despite clear instructions from the tria......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT