People (Attorney-General) v Casey

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 31 July 1961
• Date: 31 July 1961
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal

(C.C.A)

People (Attorney-General)

and

Casey

Indecent assault -Children - Hear-say evidence - Complaint by child - Admissibility - Unsworn evidence of child -Warning to jury - Visual identification - Warning of its dangers - Identification parade - Identification by child - Secondary evidence of child's conduct at parade - Admissibility - Warning to be given to jury in event of its admission.

The applicant was convicted of indecent assault upon two five-year-old boys, the only issue at the trial being the identity of the boys' assailant. One boy gave unsworn evidence at the trial stating that he met "young Casey" (whom he did not identify as being the applicant) shortly before the time fixed as that of the assault, but he was unable to give any evidence of what happened after he met "young Casey"; his mother swore that on the day after the assault the boy had given her a description of the assault. This boy failed to identify anybody at an identification parade. The second boy identified the applicant at that identification parade, and secondary evidence of this identification was given by the Garda officer in charge of the parade, but this boy was not called to give evidence, sworn or unsworn. The trial Judge failed to warn the jury of the danger of acting either on the unsworn evidence of the first boy or on the secondary evidence of the identification by the second boy, which he described as "positive evidence" and equated with evidence of identification given on oath by two other witnesses. Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal: 1, That there is no general rule of practice requiring a trial Judge to warn the jury of the dangers inherent in evidence of visual identification. 2, That the evidence...