People (Attorney General) v Blogh

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1958
• Date: 01 January 1958
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal

The People (Attorney General) v. Blogh

THE PEOPLE (at the Suit of the ATTORNEY GENERAL)

and

BARRY BLOGH (1)

Court of Criminal Appeal.

Criminal law - Indictment - Count - Dangerous driving - Statement in particulars of offence that accused "drove a vehicle at a speed or in a manner which . . . was dangerous to the public" - Whether count charged accused with two separate offences - Whether count bad for duplicity - Road Traffic Act, 1933 (No. 11 of 1933), s. 51.

B. B., was charged, inter alia, with dangerous driving, contrary to s. 51 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933. The particulars of offence in this count stated that the said B. B., ". . . in a public place . . . drove a vehicle at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, . . . was dangerous to the public." B. B., was convicted of the offence of dangerous driving. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial Judge misdirected himself in law in refusing to direct the jury that the count referred to two separate offences which would have to be considered separately and distinctly and that the count was bad for duplicity.

Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal that s. 51 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, creates two separate and distinct offences and as these two offences were charged in the alternative in one count of the indictment, the count was bad for duplicity and the conviction thereon could not stand.

The State (McLoughlin) v. Judge Shannon[1948] I. R. 439, followed.

Held also that the plea that a count is bad for duplicity may be taken on appeal notwithstanding that it was not made on arraignment.

Rex v. Molloy 15 C.A.R. 170 and R. v. Wilmot 24 C.A.R. 63 approved.

Criminal Appeal.

The facts appear sufficiently in the headnote and judgment,post.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Kingsmill Moore J.

Kingsmill Moore J.:—

The appellant...