The State v Purcell
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 11 August 1926 |
| Date | 11 August 1926 |
| Court | High Court (Irish Free State) |
Charge of murder - Fundamental test on bail motions - Probability of accused evading justice - Seriousness of crime charged - Strength of case against accused on the depositions - Bail opposed by Attorney-General Weight to be attached thereto - Probability of speedy trial - Accused returned for trial to non-existent Court - "Court of the High Court Circuit" not established - Absence of Rules of Court - Inviolability of the liberty of the person guaranteed by the Constitution of the Irish Free State - Habeas Corpus Act (Ir.),1782 (21 22 Geo. 3, c. 11) (Ir.), ss. 3 and 4 - Constitution of the Irish Free State Act, 1922 (No. 1 of 1922), Sch. I., Art. 6 - Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924), ss. 3, 36, 54, and 101.
On an application to bail a prisoner who, in July, 1925, had been returned for trial, on a charge of murder, to the "Court of the High Court Circuit" - a Court which the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, provided should be established, but which, owing to the absence of Rules of Court, had not in factbeen established:—Held by Hanna, J., that the fundamental test on bail motions is the probability of the prisoner's evading justice, but the Court is only entitled to have regard to certain matters which have been laid down as guides to a decision on that probability and which, in the circumstances, were:—(a)the seriousness of the crime charged; (b) the severity of the punishment for the offence; (c) the strength of the case against the accused on the depositions; (d) the prospect of a reasonably speedy trial; and (e) the opposition of the Attorney-General for the State. As to (a) and (b), the crime being the greatest known to the law and the penalty death, the Court would not interfere unless under very exceptional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v David Mulvey
...a ground for refusing bail and indeed to do so for that reason would only be, as Mr. Justice Hanna pointed out in The State v. Purecell [1926] I.R. 207, to violate the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty. Where, however, there are objections they must be related to the grounds up......
-
Ryan v DPP
...IR 399 - [1989] ILRM 333 |Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ryan| Citations: R V WOODS 9 ILR 7 R V MCCARTIE 11 ICLR 188 STATE V PURCELL 1926 IR 207 AG V CUNNINGHAM 1932 IR 28 AG V MCCANN 1955 IR 165 AG V MCEVOY 1959 IR 44 AG V O'CALLAGHAN 1966 IR 501 MCALLISTER, IN RE 1973 IR 238 CRIMINAL......
-
DPP v McLoughlin
...a ground for refusing bail and indeed to do so for that reason would only be, as Mr. Justice Hanna pointed out in The State v. Purcell [1926] IR 207, to violate the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty. Where, however, there are objections they must be related to the grounds upon ......
-
DPP v McLOUGHLIN
...408; [1998] 2 I.L.R.M. 233. The People (Attorney General) v. O'Callaghan [1966] I.R. 501; (1966) 102 I.L.T.R 45. The State v. Purcell [1926] I.R. 207. Criminal law - Bail - Evidence - Hearsay evidence - Relevance - Objection to bail - Test to be applied when assessing objection in grant or ......