People (Attorney-General) v Bond

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1966
• Date: 01 January 1966
• Court: High Court

(H.C.)

People (Attorney-General)

and

Bond

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 identification. While the applicant was being first cross-examined by counsel for the prosecution, the applicant was asked when, and under what circumstances, he had first met J.B. who was alleged by the prosecution to have been a leading figure in the crime with which the applicant was charged; the applicant replied that he had met J.B. in England in the year 1956 or 1957. The applicant's defence was based upon an alibi, but it involved imputations on the character of certain witnesses for the prosecution. After the case for the prosecution had been closed and the applicant and another witness for the defence had given their evidence and had left the witness box, counsel for the prosecution in the absence of the jury, sought and was given leave to cross-examine the applicant about his previous convictions. It was established on such further cross-examination and in the presence of the jury that the applicant had been convicted of several offences including in particular convictions at Birmingham Assizes on the 13th December, 1956, of two offences, namely, conspiracy to rob and robbery with violence, both relating to a robbery from a motorvan...