People v Rock
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'FLAHERTY J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1994 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 01 January 1994 |
1993 WJSC-SC 283
THE SUPREME COURT
Finlay C.J.
O'Flaherty J.
Egan J.
Blayney J.
Denham J.
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S34
PROSECUTION OF OFFENDERS ACT 1974
LARCENY ACT 1916 S2
FOLEY, STATE V CARROLL 1980 IR 150
DPP V CASSIDY 1990 ILRM 310
LARCENY ACT 1916 S14
SIMMONDS, STATE V GOVERNOR PORTLAOISE UNREP SUPREME 25.6.68
R V BRYANT 40 CAR 6
AG, PEOPLE V MILLS 1 FREWEN 153
CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) ACT 1976 S5
LARCENY ACT 1916 S23
PEOPLE V POWER UNREP CCA 1947
COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S29
Synopsis:
CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Criminal Appeal
Decision - Precedent - High Court - Decision - Conflict - Circuit Court bound by Court of Criminal Appeal - Indictment contained count charging simple larceny - Evidence established aggravated larceny - (320/90 - Supreme Court - 18/3/93) - [1994] 1 ILRM 66
|The People v. Rock|
CRIMINAL LAW
Larceny
Acquittal - Validity - Trial - Indictment - Count - Simple larceny - Prosecution evidence established larceny from the person or robbery - Verdict of not guilty returned by direction of trial judge - Question of law referred to Supreme Court without prejudice - (320/90 - Supreme Court - 18/3/93) - [1994] 1 ILRM 66
|The People v. Rock|
HIGH COURT
Decision
Precedent - Weight - Court of Criminal Appeal - Decision - Conflict - Circuit Court bound by Court of Criminal Appeal - Indictment contained count charging simple larceny - Evidence established aggravated larceny - (320/90 - Supreme Court - 18/3/93)
|The People v. Rock|
JUDGMENT of O'FLAHERTY J. delivered the 18th day of March, 1993. [NEM DISS]
This case raises questions of law referred to the Court by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to Section 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967and the Prosecution of Offenders Act, 1974.The statement of the questions is set forth in the following form:-
TAKE NOTICE that the Director of Public Prosecutions, after consultation with His Honour Circuit Court Judge Kieran O'Connor, hereby refers to the Supreme Court the questions of law hereinafter set out, which arose during the trial of the above-named accused Paul Rock:-
1. The trial of the above-named accused Paul Rock took place on the 1st day of November, 1989, before Circuit Judge Kieran O'Connor sitting as a judge assigned to the Circuit Criminal Court for the County of Dublin with a jury.
2. The accused was arraigned and, having pleaded not guilty, a jury was empanelled to try the count on the indictment which is as follows:-
Count No. 1 Simple larceny contrary to section 2 of the Larceny Act, 1916.
Paul Rock on the 12th day of April, 1989 at Elvira's Jewellers, 36B Talbot Street in the County of Dublin stole twenty signet rings all the property of Jeffrey Keeley.
3. During the course of the said trial the prosecution adduced evidence to establish the following facts:-
(a) that on the 12th April, 1989 two youths including the said accused came to the premises of Elvira's Jewellers, 36B Talbot Street, Dublin.
(b) A tray of signet rings was produced by Jeffrey Keeley, the owner thereof for inspection to one of the youths. the said youth spoke with the said Mr. Jeffrey Keeley. Then the door opened and the accused Paul Rock held the door open while the other youth grabbed at the said tray of rings and struggled with Mr. Keeley and they both tugged at the said tray of rings. The youth then ran to the door which was being held open by the accused Paul Rock and the two youths ran down the street together.
(c) The rings in question were taken from Jeffrey Keeley without his consent.
4. At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution a submission was made to the Court by Mr. Patrick Marrinan of Counsel on behalf of the accused Paul Rock to the effect that the evidence tended to show an offence of larceny from the person or robbery being offences provided for by Section 14 and 23 of the Larceny Act, 1916 respectively and that in the circumstances where the accused was charged only with the offence of simple larceny contrary to Section 2 of the Larceny Act, 1916 where the evidence disclosed an offence provided for by the other provisions of the said Act of 1916 that it was not open to the Court to find the accused guilty of an offence of simple larceny contrary to Section 2 of the Larceny Act, 1916. In support of his submission Mr. Marrinan referred the Court to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, in the case of The People at the suit of the Attorney General .v. Thomas Mills of the 21st October, 1955 reported at Volume 1 of Judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal 1924–1978 edited by Gerard L. Frewen. Mr. Marrinan sought a direction from the Court that a verdict in favour of the accused be given on the trial. He also referred the Court to the judgment of the High Court in the case of The State (Foley) .v. Carroll [1980] I.R. 150.
5. Mr. Patrick Gageby of Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions referred to the judgment of the High Court in the case of The State (Foley) .v. Carroll and further mentioned the decision of the High Court in the case of The Director of Public Prosecutions .v. Robert Cassidy [1990] ILRM 310, being a decision of Mr. Justice Gannon, in a submission that notwithstanding the fact that the evidence may have disclosed the necessary ingredients for a conviction of larceny from the person contrary to section 14 of the Larceny Act, or robbery contrary to section 23 of the Larceny Act, 1916, being cases of aggravated larceny, as the evidence was consistent with the charge of simple larceny as preferred that it was open to the Court to find the accused guilty of the offence as charged against him.
6. In reply, Mr. Marrinan submitted that as the cases referred to by Mr. Gageby were decisions of the High Court and as the decision in the case cited by him was a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal that the trial judge should follow the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal which he submitted was binding precedent.
7. The learned trial judge accepted the submission made on behalf of the accused that on the evidence it was not open to convict the accused of simple larceny as the evidence disclosed an offence of larceny from the person which is provided for by section 14 of the Larceny Act, 1916, or alternatively robbery contrary to section 23 of the Larceny Act, 1916. The learned trial judge also felt constrained by the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal and, accordingly, directed the jury to enter a verdict in favour of the accused on the charge before the Court.
8. It is respectfully submitted by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the learned trial judge misdirected himself and was wrong in law in deciding that it was not open to convict the accused of simple larceny as the evidence disclosed an offence of larceny from the person which is provided for by Section 14 of the Larceny Act, 1916, or alternatively robbery contrary to section 23 of the Larceny Act, 1916 and further in holding that he was constrained by the said reported decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
9. The Director of Public Prosecutions in exercise of the powers vested in him by section 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967and the Prosecution of Offences Act,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v D.J.
...activity described amounted to an offence more serious than that actually charged. Having regard to the decision in The People v Rock [1994] 1 ILRM 66 and the decision in The State (Foley) v Carroll [1980] IR 150, the Court was firmly of the view that the complainant should not have been pr......