People (Attorney-General) v Bond

Judgment Date01 January 1966
Date01 January 1966
CourtHigh Court
People (Attorney-General)

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • DPP v Ferris
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 10 Junio 2002
    ...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......
  • Minister for Justice and Equality v Jason Patrick Buckley
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 28 Mayo 2014
    ...IEHC 320 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (EVIDENCE) ACT 1924 S1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2010 S33 DPP v FERRIS 2008 1 IR 1 2002/9/2061 AG, PEOPLE v BOND 1966 IR 214 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE CO COUNCIL v B (K) & B (K) 2012 2 ILRM 170 2013/40/11598 2011 IESC 48 EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1) Criminal Law – Co......
  • DPP v Ferris
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 10 Junio 2002
    ...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......
1 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay, Bad Character and Trust in the Jury: Irish and English Contrasts
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 17-3, July 2013
    • 1 Julio 2013
    ...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.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT