People (Attorney General) v Moscow

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Judge: Dicon J.
• Judgment Date: 27 Jul 1950
• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Neutral Citation: 1930 WJSC-CCA 892

1930 WJSC-CCA 892

CCA

People (Attorney General) v. Moscow

PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

v

MOSCOW

1 Judgment by Dicon J. on 27-7-50

2 The applicant was found guilty of conspiracy and of ???query?????? to commit a felony. The count of conspiracy was that he conspired with one Sheila Muriel Deakin to commit a felony prohibited by section 58 ???query??????f the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, namely, to procure the miscarriage of the said Sheila Muriel Deakin by the unlawful administration by the said Sheila Muriel Deakin to herself of a noxious thing, or by the unlawful use of an instrument or other means. The count of incitement was that he unlawfully incited the said Sheila Muriel Deakin to commit a felony prohibited by s.58 of the said Act, and this felony was stated in the same words as in the other count.

3 The evidence, so far as here material, was, shortly, that on the Monday of a week in January last, in circumstances suggesting a belief on the applicant's part that the girl named in the Counts was pregnant, he suggested to her to take some of quinine sulphate tablets and also to try very high jumps. She took two quinine sulphate tablets. On the Tuesday, she was examined by a doctor to whom he had sent her. On the Wednesday, he told her he bad found a doctor who would put things right for her, that it would only be D.N.C. (she understood "C" to mean ???query?????? ) and that she would probably have "to go away the week-end." On the Friday, he gave her the address of a doctor in London she was to go to and said he would provide money for expenses and the doctor's fees. On the Saturday, he gave her money and she went to London. So far as the applicant was concerned, this account depended solely on the girl's evidence ???query?????? as to any material particular implicating him.

4 The counts specify the object of the allegad conspiracy and ???query?????? as a felony prohibited by s.58, that is something which is only a felony by cur law when ???query?????? within the jurisdiction. The ???query?????? or other or both of the parties to the ???query??????.The ???query?????? ???query?????? s.68 of Act. Two felonies are provided for in that section, one the procuring of a miscarriage of a woman by herself, the other the procuring of her miscarriage by another person. As already stated, the particulars in the counts define the felony referred to under s.58 as the administration by herself to herself of a noxious thing or the unlawful use of an instrument or other means.

5 In the opinion of this Court, the two counts can only reason-ably be interpreted as alleging conspiracy or incitement as to the commission by the girl of an offence with ???query?????? s.58. It follows that neither clearly charge conspiracy or incitement as to the commission by another person of an offence under that section: still???query??????less does the count of conspiracy clearly charge what is suggested to be an offence at common law, namely, a conspiracy for the commission of acts outside the jurisdiction which would be an offence under s.58 if committed within the jurisdiction. Assuming that such an offence exists at common law, it may well be limited to conspiracy and not include an incitement to a similar end.

6 Taking the learned judge's charge as a whole, this Court is of opinion that it would only...