People (Attorney General) v Callaghan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Murnaghan J. |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 1974 |
| Neutral Citation | 1965 WJSC-CCA 382 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Date | 27 June 1974 |
1965 WJSC-CCA 382
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Mr. Justice Griffin
Mr. Justice Murnaghan
Mr. Justice Gannon
Judgment of Murnaghan J.27 June 1974
Application for leave to appeal against conviction of murder. Defence failed to convince Court that the trial Court did not properly bear inmind
(1) the necessity that it should be satisfied that a statement before it should be admitted in evidence was voluntary
(2) that it had a discretion not to admit a statement if it was not in accordance with the Judges Rules.
Application refused.
In this case the three applicants were on 6/12/73 convicted of the murder of James Farrell and thereupon sentenced to penal servitude for life. An application on behalf of each of the applicants to the trial Court for a certificate for leave to appeal was refused.
Each of the applicants gave notice of an application for leave to appeal. In the case of each applicant the grounds given were exactly similar and were as follows:
1. The verdict was against the evidence and the weight of theevidence.
2. The Court erred in admitting verbal statements alleged to have been made by me.
3. The Court did not attach any or sufficient weight to the testimony given by me or on my behalf.
4. Further grounds to be submitted by Myles P. Shevlin,solicitor.
On the hearing before this Court of the three applications, which were heard together, counsel for the applicants applied forleave to argue the following grounds in substitution for the grounds set forth in the aforesaid applications for leave to appeal.
1. That the Special Criminal Court wrongly refused to order that the applicant be tried separately from his three co-accused.
2. That the Special Criminal Court misdirected itself in law and in fact in admitting in evidence the admissions allegedly made by theapplicant.
Leave was refused to argue the first ground but was granted in respect of the second ground.
The great bulk of the evidence related to whether or not statements made by each of the applicants were admissible in evidence.
The main argument advanced by Mr. Sorahan on behalf of each of the applicants was that each of them had been in effect, and in fact, arrested and brought to the Garda Stations before they had said anything to the Guards. In each case this was a question of fact for determination by the trial Court. The decision of the trial Court in each case was that the applicants had not been arrested as they had alleged. The trial Court, at very considerable length,extending over a period of 8 days heard the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and of the applicants in relation to the making of the various statements, and expressly rejected the evidence of each of the applicants.
In the case of Callaghan the trial Court specifically found:
1. That it was satisfied that the allegations about physical assault in Crumlin Garda Station were untrue and that it was left in no doubt as to the truthfulness of the consistent denial of them by the policeinterviewers.
2. That despite Callaghan's denial he was duly cautioned and made a full written statement adumbrating persons involved in the crime and excluding himself.
3. That it was satisfied that while in Sundrive Garda...
To continue reading
Request your trial