DPP v McDermott
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | 2003 WJSC-CCA 4087 |
| Date | 17 June 2002 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
2003 WJSC-CC 4087
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Hardiman J.
O'Higgins J.
O'Neill J.
Citations:
DPP V FINNERTY 1999 4 IR 364 2000 1 ILRM 191 1999/7/1661
Synopsis:
CRIMINAL LAW
Drugs offences
Prejudicial comment by garda witness - Whether conviction safe -Whether accused received fair trial (179/2000 - Court of Criminal Appeal - 17/6/2002)
People (DPP) v McDermott
Facts: The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction on drugs offences on a number of grounds. The applicant claimed that the trial judge had wrongly refused a direction during the trial, in addition it was claimed that the trial judge had made an unfair comment about the accused’s behaviour whilst in custody and that the jury should have been discharged when one of the garda witnesses made a remark about having known the accused, the witness already having been identified as a garda witness.
Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal in quashing the conviction and ordering a re-trial. The fact that attention had been drawn by the trial judge to the jury of the accused’s behaviour in custody and the garda witness’ comment regarding his familiarity with the accused meant that the trial was neither safe nor satisfactory. The appeal would be allowed, the conviction quashed and a re-trial ordered.
Reporter: R. F.
JUDGMENT of the Court (ex-tempore) on the 17th day of June, 2002 .
In this case three substantive grounds were urged in favour of the application for leave to appeal. They are, firstly, that the application for a direction was wrongly refused and that was urged I think it is fair to say principally on one ground in relation to the chain of evidence. Secondly, that the learned trial judge's comment about the accused's failure to give an explanation whilst in custody was wrong and from this point of view the conviction was a dangerous one, and thirdly that the jury should have been discharged when one of the garda witnesses said in relation to the defendant that firstly "I knew him" and then further on "we knew" Mr. McDermott, the guards already having identified themselves as being from a drug unit.
In relation to the first of these points, the chain of evidence point, the Court is satisfied that this point is not at all well taken. There can be no doubt, as was conceded at all times by the prosecution, that there is an inconsistency between the evidence of Detective Garda Farrell and Ms. Hughes the forensic scientist. However the question is: is this an inconsistency significant to this case such as makes it impossible for the jury rightfully to be satisfied that the material analysed by Ms. Hughes was the material seized by the Gardaí who came up to the accused in the car park as described.
We do not believe that re inconsistency does render it impossible, or impossible rationally, to be so satisfied. It is perfectly plain that one or other of these witnesses is mistaken. Mr. White has put it on the basis that if the Book of Evidence be right, that material could have been removed by Garda Farrell, and that that establishes, he says, that it was not, having regard to the evidence of Ms. Hughes, the material seized. We do not think that it is so. We do not think that the prosecution case is fatally damaged by the fact that there is an inconsistency in what we think Mr. Sweetman correctly described as a peripheral matter. The jury had to be satisfied that it was the same material and they were instructed properly in relation to that, and clearly came to the conclusion...
To continue reading
Request your trial