People (Attorney-General) v Oglesby
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1966 |
| Date | 10 March 1966 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
(C.C.A.)
People (Attorney-General)
and
Oglesby
Possession of goods recently stolen - Non-existence of so-called doctrine of recent possession - Inference which may be drawn from the fact of possession of goods recently stolen - Onus of proof - Judge's charge.
The accused was tried and convicted in the Dublin Circuit Court on a charge of receiving a tape recorder the property of Coras Iompair Eireann knowing it to have been stolen. The tape recorder had been removed from a cart on the 4th March, 1965, and was found in the accused's house on 15th May, 1965. The accused informed the Guards that he had purchased the recorder "from a man in a pub."...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock 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
13 cases
-
DPP v Rawley
...a way as to give the impression that an onus of proof as to any matter rested on the accused. People (Attorney General) v. OglesbyIR [1966] I.R. 162 distinguished. 6. The trial judge was correct in answering the jury's questions on the evidence by telling the jury that the case had conclude......
-
DPP v Murphy
... ... BETWEEN THE PEOPLE (DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS) RESPONDENT AND THOMAS MURPHY ... The threshold of cogency of proof and of reasonable doubt was outlined in People v. Oglesby [1966] 1 I.R. 162 ; ‘But the true question in every criminal case is whether ... went on to cite and uphold the judgment of Kenny J in The People (Attorney General) v. Byrne [1974] I.R. 1 : ‘The correct charge to a jury is that they must be ... ...
-
Hutch v Dublin Corporation
...- 1/4/92)- [1993] 3 I.R. 551- [1992] ILRM 596 |Hutch v. Corporation of Dublin| Citations: MALICIOUS INJURIES ACT 1981 AG, PEOPLE V OGLESBY 1966 IR 162 MCGOWAN V CARVILLE 1960 IR 330 PRENDERGAST V CARLOW CO COUNCIL 1990 2 IR 482 COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1936 S38(3) MALICIOUS INJURIES ACT 198......
-
DPP v Rattigan
...1960s the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal made the following observation on a judge's comments, in the case of People (A.G.) v Oglesby [1966] I.R. 162: 'A judge, who states the explanation given by the accused, is entitled to comment adversely on it but we do not think that he is entitled t......
Request a trial to view additional results