DPP v Quilligan and O'Reilly

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Walsh J.,Henchy J.,Griffin J.,MCCARTHY J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1987
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-SC 427
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: (367/85),[S.C. No. 267 of 1985]
• Date: 01 January 1987

DPP v. QUILLIGAN

THE PEOPLE (AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS)

AGAINST

CHRISTOPHER QUILLIGAN AND PATRICKO'REILLY

1986 WJSC-SC 427

Walsh J.

Henchy J.

Griffin J.

Hederman J.

McCarthy J.

(367/85)

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Arrest

Validity - Suspicion of garda - Commission of scheduled offence - Malicious damage to property suspected - Detention of suspect - Suspicion justified - Damage to furniture in course of fatal assault by intruder on householder - Statutory power of interrogation - Suspect interrogated about circumstances of damage to furniture and about assault on householder - Incriminating statement made by suspect about assault - Trial of suspect on indictment for murder of householder - Successful prosecution dependent upon admission of suspect's statement in evidence - Power to interrogate suspect was exercisable if at time of his arrest the suspect was suspected by the gardai of having committed a scheduled offence - Trial judge held that at the time of the arrest the arresting garda had a bona fide suspicion that the suspect had committed a scheduled offence (i.e. malicious damage to furniture) but that, nevertheless, the arrest of the suspect was not lawful (and his incriminating statement was not admissible in evidence) because the scheduled offence on which the prosecution relied was not an offence which was connected with subversive activities, as required by s.30 of the Act of 1939 - Jury returned verdict of not guilty on the direction of the trial judge - Appeal by Director of Public Prosecutions - Held that neither s.30 nor s.36 of the Act of 1939 required that the scheduled offence mentioned in s.30 be an offence connected with subversive activities - Ruling of Central Criminal Court (6/12/85) disapproved - Part IV and Part V of Act of 1939 examined - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, ss.30, 36, 46, 52 - (367/85 - Supreme Court - 25/7/86) - [1986] IR 495 - [1987] ILRM 606

|The People v. Quilligan|

GARDA SIOCHANA

Arrest

Interrogation - Condition precedent - Suspicion that scheduled offence committed - Suspicion to be formed bona fide - Scheduled offence need not be connected with subversive activities - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, ss.30, 36 - Examination of Parts IV and V of Act of 1939 - ~See~ Criminal Law, arrest - (367/85 - Supreme Court - 25/7/86) - [1986] IR 495 - [1987] ILRM 606

|The People v. Quilligan|

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Ordinary meaning

Long title - Enactment - No ambiguity - Section of Act not referring to subversive activities - Long title of Act concerned with subversive activities - Ordinary meaning of section applied - Refusal of court to modify effect of section so as to restrict it to matters mentioned in long title of statute - Examination of statutory scheme - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, ss.30, 36 - (367/85 - Supreme Court - 25/7/86) - [1986] IR 495 - [1987] ILRM 606

|The People v. Quilligan|

Citations:

AER LINGUS, STATE V LABOUR COURT 1987 ILRM 373

AG, PEOPLE V MCDERMOTT 2 FREWEN 211

BENNION STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 1984 P577

BLACK-CLAWSON V PAPIERWERKE 1975 2 WLR 513

BOWES, STATE V FITZPATRICK UNREP FINLAY 1.11.78.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS (VALIDATION) ACT 1954 S1(1)

CONSTITUTION ART 15

CONSTITUTION ART 26

CONSTITUTION ART 28

CONSTITUTION ART 34

CONSTITUTION ART 38

CONSTITUTION ART 39

CONSTITUTION ART 40

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.1

CONSTITUTION ART 6

DPP, PEOPLE V ECCLES UNREP CCA 10.02.86 1986/2/425

DPP, PEOPLE V KELLY 1983 IR 1

DPP, PEOPLE V MADDEN 1977 IR 336, 111 ILTR 117

DPP, PEOPLE V SHAW 1982 IR 1

DPP, PEOPLE V TOWSON UNREP 05.07.78

DPP, PEOPLE V WALSH 1980 IR 294

EAST DONEGAL CO-OP V AG 1970 IR 317

EMERGENCY POWERS (AMDT) (NO 2) ACT 1940

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1939

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1940

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1976 S2

EMERGENCY POWERS BILL 1976, IN RE 1977 IR 159

FIELDING V MORELY CORPORATION 1899 1 CH 1

GALLOWAY V IRISH SAILORS & SOLDIERS LAND TRUST 1950 NI 32

JUDGES RULES

LYNCH, STATE V COONEY 1982 IR 337, 1982 ILRM 190, 1983 ILRM 89

MANUEL V AG 1982 3 WLR 821

MAXWELL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 11ED P41

MAXWELL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 12ED P5

MCGRATH, IN RE 1941 IR 68

MIN INDUSTRY & COMMERCE V HALES 1967 IR 50

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE (SCHEDULED OFFENCES) (NO 2) ORDER 1972 SI 282/1972

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE (SCHEDULED OFFENCES) ORDER 1972 SI 142/1972

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 PART II

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 PART III

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 PART IV

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 PART V

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S10

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S12

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S13

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S14

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S15

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S17

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S18

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S19

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S21

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30(1)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30(3)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30(5)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S34

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S35

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S35(2)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S35(3)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S35(5)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S36

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S36(1)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S36(2)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S37

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S38

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S45

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S46

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S52

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S6

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S7

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S8

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S9

POWELL V KEMPTON PARK RACECOURSE 1897 2 QBD 242

R V NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL 1941 1 KB 584

SUTTON V SUTTON 22 CH 511

TREASON ACT 1939

TRIMBOLE V GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY 1985 ILRM 465

VACHER & SONS LTD V LONDON SOCIETY OF COMPOSITORS 1913 AC 107

WARD V HOLMAN 1964 2 QBD 580

WYKES, IN RE 1961 2 WLR 115

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 25th day of July 1986by Walsh J. (Hederman Conc.)

2 This is an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the acquittal by a jury in the Central Criminal Court of the two above-named defendants of the charge of murder. The acquittal was directed by the presiding Judge Mr. Justice Barr.

3 The defendants had been arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder of one James Willis on the night of the 19th/20th November 1984 at his dwellinghouse at Ballycurreen, Glounthaune, Co. Cork. On the night in question the deceased's home had been broken into by three men, apparently for the purpose of robbery. Entry was gained to the house by the intruders by bursting or breaking the keeper of a Yale type of lock on the front door and by damaging a bolt on the back door. The house was occupied by the deceasedand his brother John Willis. Each of the brothers was severely assaulted by the intruders, and the deceased received the fatal injuries. In addition to the damage to the doorways of the house the intruders also damaged items of furniture in the course of the struggle with the occupants and ransacked the house in a search for cash and other valuables. From the outset it appears that the Garda Siochana suspected the two defendants to have been among the intruders and each of them was arrested pursuant to s. 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. At the time the Garda authorities had no sufficient evidence to justify a charge against either of them for any of the offences committed in the Willis home. The Superintendent in charge of the case stated in evidence that he felt justified in directing an arrest under s. 30 based upon the suspicion that each accused had committed the scheduled offence of malicious damage on the night in question. The object of the arrest, according to the police evidence, was to provide an opportunity to enable the arrested persons to be interrogated during the period of detention authorised by s. 30 on all of the crimes committed at the Willis home and other "relatedmatters."

4 The defendants were arrested on the morning of the 12th December 1984 in purported pursuance of s. 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. They were then brought to the Bridewell Garda Station in Cork, where each one was detained, and interrogated by Garda officers about the death of the deceased, the assault upon the other brother and other matters which had occurred on the date of the intrusion into the house. Part of the case in the trial against the defendants was that while in detention under s. 30 of the Act of 1939 each of them had made a written statement admitting participation in the events which had taken place in the Willis house on the night in question. In fact the successful prosecution of the accused depended on the admission of those statements in evidence by the trial Judge.

5 It was submitted to the trial Judge on behalf of each of the accused that the arrests made under s. 30 were unlawful. If that were so the statements must be rejected for being in breach of the constitutional prohibition upon arrest or detention save in accordance with law. Having heard submissions on the point from both sides and having considered the matter at some length the learned trial Judge excluded the statements from evidence and consequentlydirected the acquittal of both defendants.

6 The learned trial Judge was satisfied that each of the arresting officers and the Superintendent had a bona fide suspicion when making the respective arrests that the defendants "may have been involved in malicious damage at the Willis home on the night of James's murder". The issue before the Judge, as he saw it, was whether, notwithstanding "the validity of the suspicions held by the arresting officers", they were entitled to resort to s. 30 of the...