O'Shea v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C. J.
• Judgment Date: 28 July 1989
• Neutral Citation: 1989 WJSC-CCA 1349
• Docket Number: 111/86
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 28 July 1989

DPP v. O'SHEA

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v.

GERALD O'SHEA

1989 WJSC-CCA 1349

111/86

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Detention

Extension - Validity - Suspect - Interrogation - Suspicion of commission of offence - Suspicion required for initial arrest of suspect - Requirement that suspicion also exist at time of extension - Held that the evidence of the chief superintendent established that he had the required suspicion when he directed the extension - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, s. 30 - (111/86 - C.C.A.- 28/7/89) - 3 Frewen 203

|The People v. O'Shea|

Citations:

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30

FIREARMS ACT 1925

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30(3)

DPP, PEOPLE V BYRNE 1987 IR 363

FINLAY C. J.

1 This is an application for leave to appeal against a conviction entered on the 20th November 1986 after a trial before the Special Criminal Court in respect of the offence of robbery which occurred on the 6th March 1986 and the offence arising out of the same events of having a firearm with intent to commit robbery. A number of grounds of appeal were entered on behalf of the Applicant but two only of those were proceeded with by Counsel at the hearing of this application, namely, grounds Nos. 7 and 8 which are in the following terms:

2 "7. The Court erred in law in ruling that no evidence was required from Chief Superintendent Ginty of the suspicion which grounded his signing of the Extension Order which led to the detention of the Applicant for a further period of twenty-four hours.

3 8. The Court erred in law in refusing the application of the Applicant for a dismissal by direction at the close of the prosecution case on the ground that no, or no sufficient, evidence had been produced of the suspicion held or alleged to have been held by Chief Superintendent Ginty which grounded his signing of the Extension Order."

4 The facts which are necessary to consider for the purpose of determining these two grounds of appeal are extremely limited, notwithstanding a lengthy trial and a large transcript. Evidence was given by Detective Sergeant Kevin Dillon that at 7.25 a.m. on the morning of the 8th April 1986 he arrested the Applicant under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act on suspicion of having committed a scheduled offence under the Act, being a scheduled offence under the Firearms Act and he conveyed him to Tralee Garda Station.

5 Chief Superintendent Sean Ginty who purported to make an Extension Order pursuant to Section 30 of the Act of 1939 gave evidence with regard to the making of that Order and the relevant portions of it are as follows:

"455. Chief Superintendent on the 8th April 1986 pursuant to Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, did you direct that the accused Mr. O'Shea be detained in custody for a further period of twenty-four hours commencing at 7.25 in the forenoon of the 9th April and expiring at 7.25 in the forenoon of the 10th April 1986?"

6 That is correct, my lord.

7 And do you produce that Order signed by you?

Yes, my lord."

8 And then in cross-examination by Counsel on behalf of this Applicant the Superintendent was asked as follows:

"459. Superintendent, as far as Mr. O'Shea is concerned what was your understanding of his position at 11.58 on the evening of the 8th April 1986? If you could manage without notes I would be obliged."

9 I had some discussions with the officers involved in the investigation and it was my opinion that it would be necessary to detain him for a further period of twenty-our hours and I directed accordingly.

10 460. For what purpose?

11 For the purpose of continuing their interrogation.

12 461. Had you formed a view as to what his attitude to interrogation was at that point? Well I knew that the officers concerned in the interrogation felt that a further period of twenty-four hours would be necessary, especially having regard to the fact that he would be going to bed at 12 o'clock that night and the interrogation would not resume until the following morning. I was guided by the opinions of the investigation officers and discussed it with them by phone and I was satisfied that a further period of detention was necessary in the interests of the progress of the investigation.

13 463. Were you told how Mr. O'Shea was responding to interrogation up to that point, what attitude he was taking?

14 I knew in the course of the interrogation up to that...