The State (Cannon) v Kavanagh

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)
• Judgment Date: 24 June 1937
• Date: 24 June 1937

[H. C., I.F.S.]

The State (Cannon)

and

Kavanagh

Legality of detention for execution of sentence - Whether reviewable on habeas corpus -Criminal law - Jurisdiction of Circuit Court in criminal cases - Offences charged which were alleged not to have been committed where tried -Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924), ss. 48, 53 - Conclusion by jury without evidence on fact essential to jurisdiction - Indictment and conviction of an offence with which accused not charged in District Court - Offence properly arising on evidence given in District Court -Constitution of the Irish Free Sta te (Sacrstt Eireann) Act, 1922 (No. 1 of 1922), Sch. I, Art. 6.

1. Sect. 53 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, provides: —"Provided that the jurisdiction hereinbefore vested in and transferred to the Circuit Court in criminal cases shall be exercised by the Circuit Judges severally as follows: —The Circuit Judge having jurisdiction shall be the Judge for the time being assigned to the Circuit in which the crime has been committed or in which the accused person has been arrested or ordinarily resides, . . ."F. C. and M. C., who were ordinarily resident in Mohill in the County of Leitrim, were arrested at Mohill, taken in custody to Dublin and charged in the Dublin District Court with: —(a) conspiring to and unlawfully obtaining moneys by means of false pretences with intent to defraud; (b) conspiracy to utter and forge a death certificate with intent to defraud; (c) forging a death certificate with intent to defraud, (d) uttering a forged certificate with intent to defraud. The death certificate was delivered by F. C. to M. C. who was an agent of an Assurance Company and who, in accordance with his duty as such agent, forwarded same by post from Mohill to the Company's office in Dublin in connection with a claim under a policy of assurance. A cheque for the amount payable was sent by the Company from Dublin to M. C. who paid the proceeds to F. C., the latter being authorised to receive same by the beneficiary under the policy. The accused were returned for trial in the Dublin District Court. Both in the District and Circuit Courts it was submitted on behalf of F. C. that there was no jurisdiction to try the offences charged, it being contended that the offences, if committed at all, were not committed in Dublin. In respect of one particular count in...