DPP v McGuinness

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeKENNY J.
Judgment Date03 July 1978
Neutral Citation1978 WJSC-CCA 2249
Docket NumberNo 64 /1977,[C.C.A. No. 64 of 1977]
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
Date03 July 1978
PEOPLE (D.P.P.) v. McGUINNESS
(MR. JUSTICE KENNY, MR.JUSTICE GANNON
AND MR. JUSTICE McWILLIAM)
THE PEOPLE
v.
PHELIM McGUINNESS

1978 WJSC-CCA 2249

No 64 /1977

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

KENNY J.
1

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 3rd July 1978

2

The accused, Phelim McGuinness, was tried in the Central Criminal Court by a judge of the High Court and a jury on a charge that, on the 1st of May 1976, he raped Margaret Byrne. He was represented at the trial, which lasted three days, by Mr. Marcus Daly, Senior Counsel. The judge charged the jury who subsequently returned to ask two questions. One of these was "if the jury has power to find the defendant guilty of an offence other than that which is charged in Count I of the indictment". Count 1 was the charge of rape. The trial judge gave the jury a correct direction in relation to the question and no complaint whatever has been made about this part of the trial. The jury ultimately found the accused guilty of rape and the Judge sentenced him. The question by the Jury Indicates that they did not regard the guilt of the accused on the charge of rape as being obvious. A certificate for leave to appeal was refused and the accused has now applied to this Court for leave to appeal.

3

The first and main ground of appeal argued was that "the persistent interruptions of the learned trial Judge of counsel for the defence rendered the trial unsatisfactory and the verdict of the Jury unsustainable". All the members of this Court enter on the examination of the way in which a Judge of the High Court conducted a trial before him with considerable reluctance but it is our duty to hear the appeal and to consider the grounds put forward by the accused' s counsel.

4

When the defence to a charge of rape is that the complainant consented to sexual Intercourse with the accused, the task of counsel for the defence is particularly difficult. The complainant will never admit that she consented and counsel must seek to show that at the time of the offence her character and behaviour were such that she would be likely to have consented or that she has invented the evidence which she is giving. Both of these are extremely difficult to establish but counsel must try. He often seeks to do so by cross-examining her about events in the past so that he can introduce doubts into the Binds of the jurors about her character or her credibility and he nay have to cover many aspects of her past life. He has probably carefully planned his cross-examination before the trial and past be allowed to follow this without unnecessary interruption. "The very gist of cross-examination lies in the unbroken sequence of question and answer" (Lord Justice Denning in Jones t. Rational Coal Board 1957 2 All E.R. 155 at p. 160). Counsel for the accused will be severely handicapped if he is diverted from his plan, When the defence to such a charge is consent, the cross-examination of the complainant is the most important evidential part of the trial. It may be long and counsel should be allowed to return to matters he has already dealt with if he has succeeded in showing that on other matters the witness is not to be believed. The Judge must be patient and confine his interventions to the minimum necessary for a fair trial. He should intervene only when cross-examining counsel misstates evidence already given or asks a question which the witness may not understand or when he thinks that the witness has misunderstood the question. When the defence is consent he must allow unpleasant charges to be made against the complainant in connection with her past and should not indicate to the jury that he disapproves of this being done.

5

In this case the defence was that the complainant had consented to the intercourse and, in support of this, the charge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • DPP v Kiely
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 21 March 2001
    ...OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S3 FIREARMS & OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ACT 1990 S9(5) CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1991 S4(a) DPP V MCGUINNESS 1978 IR 189 FIREARMS & OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ACT 1990 S9(6) AG V BYRNE 1974 IR 1WOOLMINGTONS CASE 1935 AC 462 R V HEPWORTH 1955 2 QB 600 AG V O'CONNOR 1935 IJR 1......
  • DPP v Heaphy
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 16 March 2015
    ... ... 14 In support of his submissions in relation to the learned trial judge's interventions, the appellant relies inter alia on the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in thePeople (At the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Phelim McGuinness [1978] I.R. at 189. In that particular case the accused was on trial in respect of a charge of rape and during the course of the trial, the trial judge interrupted the cross examination of the complainant on numerous occasions to make inquiries and remarks. The interventions were not confined to ... ...
  • Murtagh v Minister for Defence
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 July 2018
    ...13 Counsel for the appellants has referred the Court to the judgment of Kenny J. in the Supreme Court in The People (DPP) v. McGuinness [1978] I.R. 189 where a similar issue arose in relation to the interruptions of the trial judge during cross-examination of the complainant and during cou......
  • Adigun v McEvoy
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 6 July 2018
    ...of the trial. 81 The appellant cited authorities including Jones v. National Coal Board [1957] 2 Q.B. 55, The People v. McGuinness [1978] 1 I.R. 189, Power v. Doyle 2 I.R. 69 and London Borough v. Kofi-Adu [2006] ECWA Civ. 281. The appellant's contention as set out in detail in his submiss......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Towards A Presumption Of Victimhood: Possibilities For Re-Balancing The Criminal Process
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 2-21, July 2021
    • 1 July 2021
    ...Hoyano, ‘Putting the Case in Every Case’ (Counsel Magazine November 2018) 18 accessed 21 October 2021. 107 The People (DPP) v McGuinness [1978] IR 189 and see Charleton & McDermott (n 81) para 6.06-07. 108 This is what happens in the Commercial Court, and other High Court hearings; see Orde......

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