People (Attorney General) v Casey (No. 2)

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date21 December 1963
Date21 December 1963

Supreme Court.

The People (Attorney General) v. Casey (No. 2).
THE PEOPLE (at the Suit of the ATTORNEY GENERAL)
and
DOMINIC CASEY (No. 2) (1)

Criminal law - Evidence - Visual identification of accused by more than one witness - Dangers involved in accepting such identification - Accused unknown to witnesses prior to commission of offences - Verdict of jury dependent substantially upon acceptance or rejection of accuracy of identification - Judge's charge - Necessity for general warning to jury to be specially cautious in accepting correctness of evidence of identification - Nature of such general warning.

Appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The appellant, Dominic Casey, was convicted at a retrial in the Central Criminal Court (Henchy J.) on six counts of which the first three charged 1, that contrary to s. 21 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, he did on the 20th September, 1959, by means calculated to choke, suffocate or strangle, attempt to render one, David Handyside, insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance, with intent thereby to enable himself indecently to assault the said David Handyside, a male person; 2, that contrary to s. 62 of the said Act he did on the said date indecently assault David Handyside, a male person; and 3, that contrary to s. 47 of the said Act he did on the same date assault David Handyside thereby occasioning to the said David Handyside actual bodily harm. The remaining three counts were similar in form but related to one, Nicholas Healy. The appellant was sentenced to four years'

penal servitude on each of the counts, nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, and to three years' penal servitude on each of the counts, nos. 3 and 6, the sentences to run concurrently. The boys, David Handyside and Nicholas Healy, were each about 5 years old on the 20th September, 1959.

At the retrial Ann Snailes gave evidence that she parted from the appellant on the roadway near a gap in a stone wall which formed the boundary of a certain field at about 7.35 p.m. on the 20th September, 1959, and that she saw children, including David Handyside and Nicholas Healy, playing in the field at that time. She said that she had informed the appellant of her intention to return to him near the gap in the wall within a few minutes and that he had agreed to wait for her there and that he was then wearing a fairly long oatmeal-coloured overcoat. She went home and returned to the gap in the wall ten minutes later but the appellant had gone. John Mooney, a boy of about 12 years, stated that at about 7.45 p.m., when it was beginning to get dark, he saw the appellant in the middle of the field walking towards the place where the offences were committed and holding each of the boys, David Handyside and Nicholas Healy, by the hand. He stated that the appellant was wearing a near-white overcoat at the time; he identified the appellant at an identification parade and also in Court at the retrial.

The place where the offences were committed was about 1500 yards across country from the middle of the said field. The boy, Handyside, gave unsworn evidence that he was brought by a man, whom he purported to identify at the retrial as the appellant, from the field to a tree in the grounds of a certain convent where the offences were committed; he failed to identify the appellant at an identification parade. The trial Judge suggested to the jury that the evidence of Handyside should be disregarded, but directed them that if it were to be considered it must be corroborated. Diana Carroll, a young child, gave unsworn evidence that she saw Handyside and Healy in the said field and that she saw the appellant standing in that field near the wall which formed its boundary.

Richard Nohl gave evidence in which he stated that while he was in his house at about 8.45 p.m. on the same evening he heard a commotion in a field, part of the grounds of a convent, at the back of his house. He ran out of his house and entered the field where he found Handyside and Healy near a tree. Darkness had then fallen but he saw a man running away very fast and gave chase but did not succeed in reaching the running figure which was not wearing an overcoat. In the short time that Nohl was with the boys he did not notice any overcoat nearby and no overcoat was ever found in the vicinity. Nohl ran back to his house (passing his wife who went to attend to the boys), where he telephoned the Gárdai and immediately afterwards he drove his motorcar quickly along side roads to the convent gates upon which a man was climbing as he approached. The gates were about six feet high and were constructed of several bars. Nohl rammed the gates with the front of his car but they held fast; however, the shock of the collision threw the man on to the ground within the gates, in a sitting position half facing Nohl who saw the man's face for a moment in the headlights of the car and at a distance of about four yards. The glass of one of the car's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 cases
  • DPP v Cahill
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 31 July 2001
    ...Respondent and James Cahill and Gearó Costello Applicants Citations: OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30 PEOPLE V CASEY (NO 2) 1963 IR 33 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S20(8) AG, PEOPLE V MARTIN 1956 IR 22 AG, PEOPLE V FAGAN 1974 1 FREWEN 375 DPP, PEOPLE V O'REILLY 1990 2 IR 4 OFFENCES AGAI......
  • DPP v McCarthy
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 13 July 2015
    ...of his charge to the jury, failed to give full effect to the decisions in the cases of R. v. Turnbull [1977] QB. 224 and The People (Attorney General) v. Casey (No. 2) [1963] I.R.33, as to the warnings that should be given to juries in relation to the risks associated with identification ev......
  • DPP v O'Donovan
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 10 December 2004
    ...Accused Cases mentioned in this report:- The People v. StaffordIR [1983] I.R. 165. The People (Attorney General) v. Casey (No. 2)IR [1963] I.R. 33. The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. O'ReillyIRDLRM [1990] 2 I.R. 415; [1991] I.L.R.M. 10. R v. TurnbullELRWLRUNKUNK [1977] Q.B. 224......
  • DPP v O'Reilly
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 1 January 1991
    ...and Patrick O'Reilly Cases mentioned in this report:— In re Haughey [1971] I.R. 217. The People (Attorney General) v. Casey (No. 2)IR [1963] I.R. 33. The People (Attorney General) v. Fagan (1974) 1 Frewen 375. The People (Attorney General) v. MartinIR [1956] I.R. 22. The People (Attorney Ge......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Indexes
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 18-4, October 2014
    • 1 October 2014
    .... . . . . . . 94O’Leary vAttorney-General [1993] 1IR 102. . . 53,342Ohio vRoberts, 448 US56 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 257People vCasey [1963] IR33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12People vCuevos, 906 P2d 1290 (1995). . . . . . . . 15People vGould, 354 P2d 865 (1960). . . . . . . . . .......
  • The Corroboration Requirement in Scottish Criminal Trials: Should it Be Retained for Some Forms of Problematic Evidence?
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 18-1, January 2014
    • 1 January 2014
    ...1 SCR 802; Auckland City Council vBradley [1988] 1 NZLR 103; Domican vR(1992) 173CLR 555. See also Kingsmill Moore J in People vCasey [1963] IR 33 at While it might be difficult for a judge to say much more, it is suggested that thisnevertheless underestimates the unreliability of identific......
  • The judge's charge in criminal trials' (Thomson Round Hall, 2008) Genevieve Coonan and Brian Foley
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal Nbr. 1-9, January 2009
    • 1 January 2009
    ...a high standard for the charge in R v. Lawrence: _____________________________________________________ 17People (Att-Gen) v. Casey (No.2) [1963] I.R. 33. 2009] Book Review: “The Judge’s Charge” 187 It has been said before but obviously requires to be said again. The purpose of a direction t......

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