O'Leary v Cunningham

Judgment Date28 July 1980
Date28 July 1980
Docket Number[S.C. No. 145A of 1979]
CourtSupreme Court

Alternative charges - Robbery and receiving stolen goods -Conviction by court of trial on second charge on insufficient evidence - No adjudication on first charge - Equivalent to acquittal on first charge - Evidence on appeal sufficient to support conviction on first charge - Appellate court unable to confirm conviction or to convict on first charge - Courts of Justice Act, 1928 (No. 15), s. 18.

The defendant was arrested by the police shortly after a robbery had taken place late at night at a petrol station. The defendant was charged in the District Court with having robbed the station attendant of a sum of money, contrary to s. 23 of the Larceny Act, 1916, and with having received that sum of money on the same occasion knowing that it had been stolen, contrary to s. 33 of the Act of 1916. The charges were tried summarily by the District Justice. He convicted the defendant on the receiving charge and sentenced him; but the District Justice made no order in respect of the robbery charge. At the hearing in the Circuit Court of the defendant's appeal against his conviction for receiving stolen goods, the evidence established that the defendant had taken an active part with others in the robbery and showed, consequently, that the defendant's conviction on the receiving charge was erroneous. The Circuit Court judge stated a Case in which he asked the Supreme Court to determine whether, having found that the defendant was a principal in the robbery, the judge could convict the defendant on the receiving charge and, if not, whether the judge could convict the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • DPP v Finnamore
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • July 1, 2008
    ...A.C. 1254 58 and 59 R v Beedie [1998] Q.B. 356, the former of which he says was approved in this jurisdiction O'Leary v Cunningham [1980] I.R. 367. 60 Mr. Aylmer argues that arising from these cases, and others, it is impermissible in law to have sequential trials arising out of the same se......
  • DS v Judges of Cork Circuit Court and DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • October 16, 2006
    ...United States (1904) 195 U.S. 100. Ex parte Lange (1873) 18 Wall. 163. Logan v. United States (1892) 144 U.S. 263. O'Leary v. Cunningham [1980] I.R. 367. Oregon v. United States (1982) 456 U.S. 667. Pearce v. R. (1998) 194 C.L.R. 610. R. v. Henworth [2001] EWCA Crim 120, [2001] 2 Cr. App. R......
  • McGrath v Athlone Institute of Technology
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • June 14, 2011
    ...Prosecutions [2008] IESC 63, [2009] 2 I.R. 208. Director of Public Prosecutions v. O'Donnell [1995] 2 I.R. 294. O'Leary v. Cunningham [1980] I.R. 367. The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Nevin[2003] 3 I.R. 321. R. v. Fernandez [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 123. R. v. Horseferry Road Magi......
  • People v O'Shea
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1983
    ...State (O'Callaghan) v. O hUadhaigh [1977] I.R. 42. 38 The People (Attorney General) v. McGlynn [1967] I.R. 232. 39 O'Leary v. Cunningham [1980] I.R. 367. 40 The Emergency Powers Bill, 1976 [1977] I.R. 159. 41 Great Southern & Western Railway Co. v. Gooding [1908] 2 I.R. 429. 42 The State (M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The summary trial of indictable offences
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 2-4, July 2004
    • July 1, 2004
    ...witnesses are no longer available. In such a case the prosecutor is likely to take a more serious view of the 48 O’Leary v. Cunningham [1980] I.R. 367 at 373 The Summary Trial Of Indictable Offences 176 [4:2 case than would otherwise be the case but the reason for this may not be apparent t......

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