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

CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)
Judgment Date02 March 1947
Date02 March 1947
The People (Attorney-General) v. Lehman (No. 2).
THE PEOPLE (at the suit of the Attorney-General)

Court of Criminal Appeal

Criminal law - Trial - Challenge of jurors - Accused's right of - Challenge for cause shown - Whether accused entitled to put questions to jurors to ascertain whether right of challenge should be exercised.

Expressions of opinion by members of a jury, empanelled to try an indictable offence, are not a ground of challenge unless they are corrupt as proceeding from ill-will, and counsel for the accused is not entitled, with a view to ascertaining whether the right of challenge allowed in such a case should be exercised, to question members of the jury as to such expressions, which must be proved aliunde.

So held by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Criminal Appeal.

The accused was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, Dublin, on the 24th of January, 1945, before Overend J. and a jury on the charge of having, on the 19th of March, 1944, murdered one, Margaret Lehman, his wife. At the conclusion of the trial an application for a certificate giving liberty to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was refused by the trial Judge. The accused now applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal to that Court against his conviction. The evidence produced at the trial, together with the grounds of appeal, are sufficiently stated in the judgment of Sullivan C.J. post.

Cur. adv. vult.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by Sullivan C.J.

Sullivan C.J. :—

This is an application by James Herbert Lehman for leave to appeal against his conviction and the sentence of death pronounced by the Central Criminal Court on the 24th January, 1945, upon his trial on the charge that, on the 19th March, 1944, he murdered Margaret Lehman. The grounds stated in the notice of application are:— 1. That the learned trial Judge misdirected himself in law in refusing to allow counsel on behalf of the accused to put questions to the jurors so that such jurors could, if necessary, be challenged for cause shown. 2. That the learned Judge misdirected himself in law in refusing the application of counsel for the accused for a direction. 3. That the verdict of the jury was against the evidence and weight of evidence. 4. That the learned Judge misdirected himself in las in allowing evidence of the bad character of the accused to be given by the prosecution, notwithstanding objection by counsel on behalf of the accused. 5. That the learned Judge did not adequately put the case for the defence to the jury.

The deceased, Margaret Lehman, was the wife of the accused whom she had married on the 20th February, 1940. The marriage took place at Aldershot, where the accused, who was then a private is the Canadian Army, was stationed. From the date of their marriage until the month of August, 1943, the accused and his wife continued to reside in England, and during that time two children were born of the marriage, a boy, Kevin Patrick, born on the 25th December, 1940, and a girl, Patricia Anne, born on the 28th January, 1943. In the month of August, 1943, the accused, his wife and their two children came to this country and having stayed for some time with Mrs. Lehman's mother in County Kildare, they came to live in Dublin.

On the 7th January, 1944, they went to reside in the house of a Mrs. O'Callaghan at 11 Leinster Road in which the accused had rented two rooms, one of which they used as a kitchenette, and they continued to reside there until the death of Mrs. Lehman on the 19th March of that year. Mrs. O'Callaghan who occupied the remainder of the house and became very friendly with Mrs. Lehman described her as a very nice little person, never out of sorts or in ill health.

In the month of January, 1944, the accused became tenant of a shop at 47 Chelmsford Road, Ranelagh, in which he carried on business, at first as a retailer of baby foods, and subsequently as a retailer of coffee. Mrs. Lehman took no part in the business, which was managed by the accused and two assistants.

On Saturday, the 18th March, Mrs. Lehman had tea with Mrs. O'Callaghan in Mrs. O'Callaghan's room, and remained there until approximately 6.30 p.m...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • DPP v Haugh
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 Mayo 2000
    ...S9 JURIES ACT 1976 S11 JURIES ACT 1976 S12 JURIES ACT 1976 S15(1) JURIES ACT 1976 S15(3) JURIES ACT 1976 S36 AG, PEOPLE V LEHMAN (NO 2) 1947 IR 137 ARCHBOLD CRIMINAL LAW 29ED 193 & 371 R V STEWART 1 COX 174 R V DOWLING 7 ST (NS) 381 R V EDMONDS 1 ST (NS) 785 HUBAND ON JURIES 666-9 R V MART......
  • People (Attorney General) v Singer
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 23 Junio 1961
    ...13 Q.B. 815. 16 (1858) 3 H.&N. 869. 17 (1852) 3 H.L. Cas. 759. 18 (1933) 50 T.L.R. 1. 19 (1915) 31 T.L.R. 564. 20 (1849) 13 Q.B. 815. 21 [1947] I.R. 137. 22 [1908] 2 I.R. 285. 23 [1910] 2 I.R. 271. ...

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