People (Attorney-General) v Oglesby
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1966 |
| Date | 10 March 1966 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
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." The trial judge (Judge Conroy) gave a full direction to the jury on the burden of proof, and he informed the jury if they rejected the explanation of the accused as to his possession of the recorder they were entitled to convict. On an application by the accused for leave to appeal it was held by the Court of Criminal Appeal ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Teevan and Kenny JJ.): 1. That the trial judge's directions to the jury were unsatisfactory because his remarks made in the course of his charge might have caused the jury to think that the issue which they had to try was whether they accepted or rejected the explanation given by the accused and that, if they rejected it, they should convict. 2. Decisions given before the year 1935 in relation to the so-called doctrine of recent possession in receiving cases, in so far as they decide that an onus of proof lies on an accused person in possession of goods which have been recently stolen to give an explanation, or in so far as they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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 Cronin
...CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1964 S4(2) DPP V HALLIGAN UNREP O'FLAHERTY 13.7.1998 1999/8/1747 R V CAMBRIDGE 1994 2 AER 760 PEOPLE V OGLESBY 1966 IR 162 PEOPLE V GREY 1944 IR 326 WOOLMINGTON V DPP 1935 AC 462 R V MANCINI 1942 AC 1 SEAN DORAN 1991 CRIM LR 878 DPP V HANLEY UNREP BARRINGTON 5.11.19......