People (Attorney-General) v Bond
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1966 |
| Date | 01 January 1966 |
Imputations on character of prosecution witnesses - Disclosure of prior convictions of accused - Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act, 1924, s. 1 (f) - Identification of accused - Failure of witness to identify accused at identification parade - Accused identified by witness subsequently in Court.
The applicant was tried in the Central Criminal Court before a judge and jury and was convicted of stopping a mail with intent to rob the mail. Three of the witnesses for the prosecution had failed to identify the applicant at an identification parade, but they identified him subsequently in Court. The trial judge's charge to the jury contained a strong warning of the danger of acting on such evidence of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Minister for Justice and Equality v Jason Patrick Buckley
...v. Ferris [2008] 1 I.R. 1, Fennelly J. cites with specific approval the judgment of Haugh J. in The People (Attorney General) v. Bond [1966] I.R. 214. In that case the accused had been cross-examined as to previous convictions on the basis that the defence had attacked the character of pros......
-
DPP v Ferris
...accused's good character and should not imply any disposition to commit the offence in question. The People (Attorney General) v. Bond [1966] I.R. 214 considered. R. v. Rowton (1865) Le. & Ca. 520 approved. Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1944] A.C. 315 not followed. 3. That th......
-
DPP v Ferris
...ACT 1924 S1(f)(ii) CRIMINAL JUSTICE (EVIDENCE) ACT 1924 S1(f)(iii) R v ROWTON 10 COX CC 25 R v BUTTERWASSER 1948 1 KB 4 AG, PEOPLE v BOND 1966 IR 214 CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) (AMDT) ACT 1990 S7 CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) (AMDT) ACT 1990 S7(1) DPP v M (J E) (AKA M (S)) UNREP DENHAM 1.2.2000 2000/8/3053......
-
Hearsay, Bad Character and Trust in the Jury: Irish and English Contrasts
...original.6 Section 1(f) of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act 1924 contains the Irish law on this point.7 See, e.g., People (AG) vBond [1966] IR 214.8 The leading case is People (AG) vO’Brien [1965] IR 142. For a discussion of the rationale underpinning theO’Brien rule of exclusion, see Y.......