DPP v Walsh

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C.J.
• Judgment Date: 20 December 1985
• Neutral Citation: 1985 WJSC-CCA 2078
• Docket Number: Record No. 86/84
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 20 December 1985

DPP v. WALSH

THE PEOPLE (AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS)

Respondent

and

PATRICK WALSH (OTHERWISE CALLED PA NED WALSH)

Appellant

1985 WJSC-CCA 2078

Record No. 86/84

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Arrest

Validity - Suspicion of garda - Suspicion of commission of scheduled offence - Malicious damage to property - Detention of suspect - Suspicion justified - Arrest and detention lawful - Unnecessary that garda suspect commission of scheduled offence in connection with subversive activities - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, ss. 30, 36 - (86/84 - C.C.A. - 20/12/85) - [1986] I.R. 722 - [1988] ILRM 142

|The People v. Walsh|

CRIMINAL LAW

Arrest

Validity - Suspicion of garda - Suspicion of commission of scheduled offence - Malicious damage to property - Detention of suspect - Suspicion justified - Interrogation of suspect - Subsequent trial of suspect on indictment for murder - Indictment containing single count - conviction - Malicious damage being part of actus reus of murder - Arrest and detention not rendered unlawful by interrogation or subsequent charge of murder - Exercise of power of arrest without warrant pursuant to s. 30 of Offences Against the State Act, 1939 - (86/84 - C.C.A. - 20/12/85) - [1986] I.R. 722 - [1988] ILRM 142

|The People v. Walsh|

CRIMINAL LAW

Suspect

Interrogation - Scope - Arrest on suspicion - Commission of scheduled offence suspected - Malicious damage to property - Suspicion justified - Detention of suspect - Interrogation of suspect about murder - Incriminatory statement - Subsequent trial of suspect on indictment for murder - Indictment containing single count - Conviction - Malicious damage being part of actus reus of murder - Extension of interrogation to subject of murder not unlawful - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, s. 30 - (86/84 - C.C.A - 20/12/85) - [1986] I.R. 722 - [1988] ILRM 142

|The People v. Walsh|

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Ordinary meaning

Enactment unambiguous - Power of arrest without warrant - Section conferring power without limiting exercise of power - Section part of statute dealing with subversive activities - Exercise of power not restricted to suspected offences connected with such activities - Power to arrest person suspected of commission of scheduled offence - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, ss. 30, 36 - (86/84 - C.C.A. - 20/12/85) - [1986] I.R. 722 - [1988] ILRM 142

|The People v. Walsh|

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Term

Statutory definition - Ambiguity absent - Definition unaffected by other sections of same statute - (86/84 - C.C.A. - 20/12/85)

|The People v. Walsh|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Scheduled offence"

Statutory definition - Ambiguity absent - Meaning unaffected by other provisions of statute - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, s. 30 - (86/84 - C.C.A. - 20/12/85)1986 I.R. 722 1988 ILRM 142

|The People v. Walsh|

Citations:

BOWES, STATE V FITZPATRICK UNREP FINLAY 1.11.78

CONSTITUTION ART 40

DPP, PEOPLE V TOWSON UNREP 05.07.78

MALICIOUS DAMAGE ACT 1861

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

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 PART V

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S36

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S36(1)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S45

FINLAY C.J.

1 This is an appeal brought against the conviction of the Appellant in the Central Criminal Court on a charge of murder, pursuant to a Certificate of Leave to Appeal, granted by the learned trial Judge, O'Hanlon J., at the conclusion of the trial.

2 The Certificate of Leave to Appeal was granted "on the ground put forward by Counsel for the Defence that the arrest and detention of the accused under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act1939was unlawful and that, accordingly, statements made by him during the period of such detention should not have been admitted in evidence."

3 No other ground of appeal was urged upon or argued before this Court and it was conceded by counsel on behalf of the Respondent that if it were the decision of this Court that the arrest was unlawful the statements admitted in evidence would have been inadmissible, and that in that event there was not any other sufficient evidence to lead to a conviction of the accused and that this Court should set aside the verdict.

4 An elderly lady, Lis May O'Sullivan, who resided in Listowel, was, on the 2nd July 1983, found dead in her home in Listowel, having last been seen alive late on the night of the 1st July 1983. She had received multiple injuries and a very severe head wound which was the cause of her death. She was found in the kitchen of her house which connected by a glass door to a small shop of which she was the proprietor. A pane of glass in this connecting door was found broken, having been in good repair the previous evening, and a heavy, metal pot, which was probably the main murder weapon, was found to have been broken, having lost a chip and the handle having been separated from it and found outside the premises.

5 On the 5th July 1983 the Appellant was arrested by Detective Sergeant O'Donnell on suspicion of having committed a scheduled of offence pursuant to section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act1939, the offence being the malicious damage to the pane of glass in the door and to the heavy pot. It was not contested before this Court that Sergeant O'Donnell had grounds for suspecting the accused of being involved in that crime. Sergeant O'Donnell in evidence stated that whilst he arrested the Appellant on that suspicion, he was anxious to question him concerning the killing of LiL May O'Sullivan. No evidence was given of any "subversive" or "terrorist" motive in the crime.

6 Pursuant to that arrest the accused was detained for over twenty-four hours, a valid Extension Order having been made by a Chief Superintendent, and was then brought before the District Court, and charged with murder and with malicious damage to the value of less than £50. He was indicted and tried for murder only. During the course of his detention, in purported pursuance of section 30, the accused was finger-printed and questioned, and made statements, some of which...