People (Attorney General) v Walsh
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1972 |
| Neutral Citation | 1965 WJSC-CCA 503 |
| Date | 31 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | 31-1972 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
1965 WJSC-CCA 503
court of criminal appeal
(MuLoughlinj., Murnaghanj., Bulter j.)
Judgment delivered stJuly 1972
This being the last day of Trinity Term and it not being foreseeable when this Court as at present constituted could lie re-assembled it has been decided not to postpone giving judgement but, so as not to cause delay, to deliver judgment forthwith stating consisely the conclusions come to by the court on the points raised by counsel for the applieant in his argument.
This application of leave to appeal is against the conviction and sentence of the applicant on a trail hadbefore the learned President of the High Court in the Central Criminal Court on the 9the March,1972.
The applicant was found guilty by the jury on two counts on the Indictment, Nos. 1and 3 vis:
Count1: Office-breaking with intent countrary to section 27(2) of the Larceny Act, 1916.
Count 3: Unlawful possession of a firarm countrary to section 2(2) of the Firearms Act, 1925as amended by section 3 of the Firearms Act, 1971.
The grounds of the application are set out thus:-
2 "(1) That the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence in that
(a) there was no proof that the accused had ever in his possession a firearm of the type specified in the Idictment (Count 3).
(b) There was no proof that the accused broke and entered the premises specified at Count (1) on the Indictment.
a (c)The purported returm for trial was bad on its face.
(2) That the learned trail judge erred in law and in fact in refusing to grant a direction at the end of the case for the prosection; or alternatively the learned trail judge erred in law and in fact in failing to discharge the jury at the end of the case for the prosection.
(3) That the sentence was too severe. But Mr. Sheridan for the applicant has confined his submissions in effect to one ground, viz: that the return for trial by the District Justice was invalid and that consequently the trial was invalid and he asks this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence and no order the discharge of the applicant from custody.
**???query??????:-
"That you the said Defendant did o the 2nd November "1971 at GRaigue, cahil, Co. **???query?????? " District Court Area of Cahiur District???query?????? the " said Defendant did with intent to commit a...
To continue reading
Request your trial