DPP v McCAFFREY

 
FREE EXCERPT

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 andsentenced to ten years imprisonment on each of four counts in theSpecial Criminal Court on the 28 October 1983. The counts in questionrelated to possession of firearms, control of firearms, falseimprisonment and unlawful seizure of a vehicle. In this application,which relates to the convictions and not to the sentences, only oneground of appeal has been argued, namely that there was no adequateevidence that the applicant had been duly arrested pursuant to s. 30 ofthe Offences Against the State Act, 1939. It is common case that proof of such arrest was necessary to establishthe 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 applicantof having committed one of the offences to which the section relates.The submission made on behalf of the applicant is that it was not shownthat such suspicion existed.

4

The relevant evidence was as follows. The arresting member of the GardaSiochana, Sergeant Balfe, said in his direct evidence that he arrestedthe applicant under s. 30 on suspicion of having committed a scheduledoffence, namely having possession of a firearm and ammunition withintent to endanger life. In cross-examination he agreed that he had nosuspicion of his own with regard to the applicant. This statement waselaborated on by him in re-examination when he said in effect that thesource of his suspicion was a direction to him from Chief SuperintendentMcNally, the Garda officer in charge of the investigations, to arrestthe applicant on suspicion of having committed a crime which hadinvolved firearms and ammunition. This was borne out by ChiefSuperintendent McNally when he came to give evidence.

5

In the light of that evidence, counsel for the applicant argued that allthat was proved was that Chief Superintendent McNally had the requiredsuspicion, whereas what was requiredunder s. 30 was...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL