People (Attorney General) v Marshall

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 December 1956
• Date: 17 December 1956
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal

Court of Criminal Appeal.

The People (Attorney General) v. Marshall

THE PEOPLE (at the Suit of the ATTORNEY GENERAL)

and

PETER MARSHALL (1)

Criminal law - Conviction - Plea of guilty signed in District Court - Plea of guilty made in Circuit Court - Pleas apparently made under misapprehension - Nolle prosequi entered on lesser counts arising out of same incident - Evidence disclosing that accused not guilty of offence to which pleas of guilty made - Such evidence not available to Circuit Court - Conviction discharged by Court of Criminal Appeal - Criminal Justice Act, 1951 (No. 2 of 1951), s. 3, sub-s. 2.

Criminal Appeal.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence only.

The applicant, Peter Marshall, who was aged eighteen, was convicted in the Circuit Court of having carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of fifteen years, contrary to s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. To this offence he had signed a plea of guilty in the District Court, pursuant to s. 3, sub-s. 2 (ii), of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951. The applicant was indicted in respect of the same incident on counts of attempted carnal knowledge, of indecent assault and of common assault, but he was arraigned only on the carnal knowledge count, a nolle prosequi being entered by the Attorney General in respect of each of the three lesser counts. No depositions, other than those deposing to the arrest and remand of the applicant had been taken in the District Court at the time when the applicant signed the plea, with the result that no evidence of the offence charged, other than the applicant's plea of guilty, was before the Circuit Court. Statements of evidence which came before the Attorney General subsequent to the hearing in the Circuit Court showed that, even on the view of the evidence least favourable to the applicant, he was guilty at most of attempted carnal knowledge and

that, accordingly, the applicant, who was not represented in either the District Court or the Circuit Court, must have pleaded guilty while not fully understanding the nature of the charge against him.

The applicant was not represented.

M. was charged in the District Court with having unlawfully had carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of fifteen years contrary to s. 1, sub-s. 1, of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, to which charge he signed a plea of guilty pursuant to s. 3, sub-s. 2 (ii), of the Criminal...