People (DPP. v Stafford

 
FREE EXCERPT

1983 WJSC-CCA 1579

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Hederman J.

Hamilton J.

Keane J.

(11-1981)
People (DPP. v. Stafford
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v.
JAMES STAFFORD
HEDERMAN J.
1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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

The grounds of appeal as furnished to this Court were
5

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 against him.

6

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.

7

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.

8

4. The learned Trial Judge erred in law in failing to bring to the attention of the Jury in general terms 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.

9

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.

10

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

11

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.

12

With regard to grounds 1 to 4 inclusive, it is clear from a consideration of the Transcript of Evidence given 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.

13

Both...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL