People (DPP. v Stafford

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: HEDERMAN J.
• Judgment Date: 07 December 1981
• Neutral Citation: 1983 WJSC-CCA 1579
• Docket Number: (11-1981)
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 07 December 1981

People (DPP. v. Stafford

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS

v.

JAMES STAFFORD

1983 WJSC-CCA 1579

(11-1981)

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

1 JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 7th day of December1981by HEDERMAN J.

2 The accused in this case, James Stafford, was convicted in the Central Criminal Court on the 19th day of February 1981 of the offences charged at counts number 3 and 6 in the indictment preferred against him and sentenced to 8 years penal servitude in respect of count number 3 and 3 years in respect of count number 2.

3 An application was made on behalf of the accused for a certificate for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and this application was refused by the learned trial Judge.

4 The accused has appealed to this Court against such refusal and the hearing of such appeal has been treated by this Court as the appeal against conviction.

5 The Court has already allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and directed the re-trial of theaccused and now states its reasons for so doing.

6 The grounds of appeal as furnished to this Court were

7 1. The learned Trial Judge erred in law in directing the Jury to distinguish between "recognition" and "identification" in their determination of the issue of the presence of the Appellant at the scene of the crimes alleged againsthim.

8 2. The learned Trial Judge erred in law in directing the Jury to disregard the criteria to be followed by a Jury in a criminal trial as set out by the Supreme Court in the case of "The Attorney General v. Casey" 1963 I.R. p. 33.

9 3. The learned Trial Judge erred in law in failing to warn the Jury of the necessity to be especially cautious in accepting evidence of identification as being correct when the guilt of the prisoner depends wholly or substantially upon the correctness of such evidence.

10 4. The learned Trial Judge erred in law in failing to bring to the attention of the Jury in generalterms the fact that in a number of instances identification has proved erroneous; to the possibility of mistake in the case before them; and lead to the necessity of caution.

11 5. The learned Trial Judge failed or failed adequately to present to the Jury the case for the defence that before finding adversely to the prisoner it was necessary for the Jury to be satisfied that the prisoner shot at the prosecuting Guard Garda Muldoon with intent to injure or kill him.

12 6. The learned Trial Judge did not adequately or at all present the case for the defence to the Jury.

13 Having regard to the fact that the accused was found not guilty by direction of the offence of attempting to murder Detective Garda John Muldoon contrary to s. 14 of the Offences Against The Person Act, 1861, the ground of appeal set forth at 5 does not appear to be relevant.

14 With regard to grounds 1 to 4 inclusive, it is clear from a consideration of the Transcript of Evidencegiven at the trial of the accused herein that the prosecution case depended solely and exclusively on the visual identification of the accused by Garda Murphy and Garda Muldoon as the person who was involved in the incident which was the subject matter of the charges preferred against him in the Central Criminal Court.

15 Both Detective Garda Murphy and Detective Garda Muldoon testified that they had known the accused for a number of years prior to the incident, had ample opportunity to see and observe him and were satisfied that he was the person involved in the incident. The evidence given by the Gardai of identification of the accused as the man involved in this regard was not really challenged in cross-examination by counsel on behalf of the accused.

16 Their evidence in this regard however was put in issue by the evidence of the accused that he was not involved in the incident, was not present in the area where it occurred and by the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Walshwhich if accepted would have rendered it unlikely for him to have beenpresent.

17 It is clear from the Judge's charge that counsel for the accused in the course of his address to the Jury referred to the case of TheAttorney General v. Dominic Casey and the criteria laid down in that case which should be applied in their consideration of the evidence of Detective Garda Murphy and Detective Garda Muldoon because the Judge stated as follows at p. 7 of his charge:-

"Before I leave the law, Mr. Mackey referred at some length to a decision of the Supreme Court in Dominic Casey's case, in which the Supreme Court laid down the law ... clarify the law as to visual identification. Now Dominic Casey's case has nothing to do with this case, absolutely nothing to do with this case because this is not a case of...