DPP v Moore

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Finlay, P.
• Judgment Date: 30 July 1979
• Neutral Citation: 1980 WJSC-CCA 138
• Date: 30 July 1979
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Docket Number: (30-1978)

1980 WJSC-CCA 138

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Finlay, P

Griffin J.

Costello J.

(30-1978)

People (D.P.P.) v. MOORE

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

.v.

WILLIAM THOMAS MOORE

1 RULING delivered by Finlay, P.this 30th July 1979

2 This applicant applied to the Court having been refused by the Court a Certificate of leave to appeal against his conviction for a Certificate under Section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924in respect of three points of law which Counsel submitted to the Court were of exceptional public importance. The first point was the decision of the Court that notwithstanding that the applicant might have succeeded on the inadmissibility of reference in his statement to the use of the shatter bar for robberies that the Court was satisfied to operate the powers vested in it by Section 5 1 (a) of the Courts of Justice Act 1928and dismissed the appeal. The Court is satisfied that the exercise by it of its discretion under the Section in this case related to the facts of this case and did not involve any principle or point of law ofthe applicant is not entitled to a Section 29 Certificate on this heading. The second point submitted was the decision of this Court as to the adequacy and appropriateness of the trial Judge's charge with particular reference to Section 4 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964. The Court in again is again satisfied that this decision relating to the detailed contents of the Judge's charge in this particular case does not involve a point of law of exceptional public importance and refuses a Certificate on this point also. The third point raised was the affirming by the decision of this Court of the exercise by the trial Judge of his discretion to admit certain verbal statements notwithstanding the fact that they were apparently taken in breach of the Judge's rules. This Court is again satisfied that this point arises on the individual facts of the case and does not involve any point of law of exceptional public importance. The Certificate under Section 29 on all three grounds submitted is therefore refused.