Dunne v Clinton
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 28 May 1930 |
| Date | 28 May 1930 |
| Court | High Court (Irish Free State) |
Person suspected of a crime - Detention by Civic Guards without formal arrest - Legality of procedure - Duty of Civic Guards - Person suspected to be brought before a Peace Commissioner as soon as reasonably possible - Liability of Civic Guards - Damages.
A felony having been committed, a Civic Guard requested the two plaintiffs, whom he suspected of complicity in the crime, to go to the Civic Guards' Barracks, which the plaintiffs voluntarily did. When they reached the barracks they were questioned by the defendant, the Chief Superintendent of the Civic Guards for the county, and were then detained in the barracks while the Guards were endeavouring to procure evidence. They were not charged with any crime, nor were they formally arrested. They were detained in the barracks from anearly hour of the morning of one day until the evening of the following day, when, in consequence of a letter of complaint from their solicitor, they were formally arrested and charged with the crime and brought before a Peace Commissioner, who remanded them on bail to the next District Court. At that Court the charge was dismissed. It was admitted that the plaintiffs could have been brought before a Peace Commissioner on either of the two days during which they were detained. Each of the plaintiffs then brought a civil bill against the defendant for damages for false imprisonment. The Circuit Court Judge gave a decree in favour of one of the plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v Shaw
...to this rule provided which appears in the Offences Against the State Act 1939has no relevance to the present case. Dunne v. Clinton 1930 I.R. 366; (and Sup. Ct. unreported); A.G. v. Cox(CCA. 294.1929 unreported); People v. O'Loughlin 1979I.R. 85; People v. Walsh (supra); A.G. v. Higgins 1......
-
People v Shaw
...Commissioner or District Justice during the night. This Court agreed with this conclusion. The authorities such as Dunne .v. Clinton ( 1930 I.R. 366) go no further than requiring a person detained to be brought before a Peace Commissioner or District Justice as soon as can reasonably be do......
-
DPP v Walsh
...not done invalidate what otherwise was lawful? This, it seems to me, was one of the problems considered and decided in Dunne v. Clinton 1930 I.R.366. This decision has, for almost fifty years, been rightly regarded in out Courts as the leading authority on arrest at common law. It came bef......
-
DPP (at the suit of Garda Cheryl Kelly) v Robin Fox
...- Whether evidence obtained during detention admissible - DPP v Finn [2003] 1 IR 372, DPP v McNiece [2003] 2 IR 614, Dunne v Clinton [1930] IR 366 and The People v Walsh [1980] IR 294 considered - Road Traffic Act 1961 (No 24), s 50(4) and (6)(a) - Road Traffic Act 1994 (No 7), s 11 - Pro......
-
Courts of Appeal
...in good company -that of the CourtofAppeal.Lawton L.J.'s dictum is in keeping with the opinions expressed byHanna J. in Dunn v. Clinton [1930] I.R. 366, by Stephenson L.J. inR. v. Inwood [1973] I W.L.R. 647; [1973] 37 J.C.L. 256 andViscount Dilhorne in Spencer v. Holt (1976] 63 Cr. App. Rep......
-
The criminal justice act, 2006: a crushing defeat for due process values?
...would be done openly in the public courtroom under the 2For example, Offences Against the State Act, 1939-1998, s.30. 3 Dunne v. Clinton [1930] I.R. 366 (H.C.). _____________________________________________________ Judicial Studies Institute Journal [2007:1 46 supervision of an independent ......