DPP v McCAFFREY

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeHenchy J.
Judgment Date01 January 1986
Neutral Citation1983 WJSC-CCA 1955
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
Date01 January 1986

1983 WJSC-CCA 1955

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Henchy J.

Gannon J.

Egan J.

164/1983
People (D.P.P.) v. McCAFFREY
THE PEOPLE (D.P.P.)
v.
BRENDAN McCAFFREY
1

Judgment of the Court delivered by Henchy J.on the 30th July 1984.

2

The applicant in this application for leave to appeal was convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment on each of four counts in the Special Criminal Court on the 28 October 1983. The counts in question related to possession of firearms, control of firearms, false imprisonment and unlawful seizure of a vehicle. In this application, which relates to the convictions and not to the sentences, only one ground of appeal has been argued, namely that there was no adequate evidence that the applicant had been duly arrested pursuant to s. 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. It is common case that proof of such arrest was necessary to establish the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court to try theapplicant.

3

For the purpose of s. 30 it was for the prosecution to showthat the arresting member of the Garda Siochana suspected the applicant of having committed one of the offences to which the section relates. The submission made on behalf of the applicant is that it was not shown that such suspicion existed.

4

The relevant evidence was as follows. The arresting member of the Garda Siochana, Sergeant Balfe, said in his direct evidence that he arrested the applicant under s. 30 on suspicion of having committed a scheduled offence, namely having possession of a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life. In cross-examination he agreed that he had no suspicion of his own with regard to the applicant. This statement was elaborated on by him in re-examination when he said in effect that the source of his suspicion was a direction to him from Chief Superintendent McNally, the Garda officer in charge of the investigations, to arrest the applicant on suspicion of having committed a crime which had involved firearms and ammunition. This was borne out by Chief Superintendent McNally when he came to give evidence.

5

In the light of that evidence, counsel for the applicant argued that all that was proved was that Chief Superintendent McNally had the required suspicion, whereas what was requiredunder s. 30 was evidence that Sergeant Balfe had that suspicion when he made the arrest, and that that evidence was wanting at the trial.

6

The Court is unable to agree...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • DPP v Cash
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • March 28, 2007
    ...S6 OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S4 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (DRUG TRAFFICKING) ACT 1996 S2 DPP v MCCAFFREY 1986 ILRM 687 3 FREWEN 284 LISTER v PERRYMAN 1870 LR 4 HL 521 DPP v REDDAN & HANNON 1995 3 IR 560 R v DEBOT 1989 2 SCR 1140 SHAABAN BIN HUSSEIN SBH & ORS......
  • CRH Plc, Irish Cement Ltd v Competition and Consumer Protection Commission
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • May 29, 2017
    ...official to another, which is enough to leave that other individual in a state of reasonably suspecting; The People (DPP) v McCaffrey [1986] ILRM 687. The fact that a suspect is later acquitted does not mean that there was not a reasonable suspicion to ground either an arrest or a search. ......
  • Braney v Special Criminal Court
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • February 12, 2021
    ...official to another, which is enough to leave that other individual in a state of reasonably suspecting; The People (DPP) v McCaffrey [1986] ILRM 687. The fact that a suspect is later acquitted does not mean that there was not a reasonable suspicion to ground either an arrest or a search. I......
  • Kevin Braney v Ireland and the Attorney General
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • February 12, 2021
    ...official to another, which is enough to leave that other individual in a state of reasonably suspecting; The People (DPP) v McCaffrey [1986] ILRM 687. The fact that a suspect is later acquitted does not mean that there was not a reasonable suspicion to ground either an arrest or a search. I......
  • 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