In the Irish Courts
| Date | 01 October 1976 |
| Published date | 01 October 1976 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837604000409 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In
the Irish
Courts
Comments
on
Cases
STATUTORY
RIGHT
OF APPEAL
The
State
(Hunt)
v.
O'Donovan
Laudable
attempts
to
speed
up
the
judicial
process
in
criminal
trials
by
ad
hoc
statutory
amendment
are
fraught
with
the
danger
that
anomalies
will
unwittingly
be
introduced.
The State (Hunt) v.
O'Donovan
(1975,
I.R.
39)
is an
example
of
such
an
unforeseen
anomaly,
which
had
to
be
corrected
by
further
statutory
amendment.
It
was
formerly
provided
by
s.3
of
the
Criminal
Justice
Act,
1951
that
where
an
accused
was
charged
in
the
District
Court
with
an
indictable
offence
and
signed a
plea
of
guilty,
he
could
be
sent
for-
ward
to
the
Circuit
Court
for
trial. He was
then
arraigned
on
indict-
ment
and
pleaded
guilty
to
the
counts
in
the
indictment
and
was
sentenced.
He
then
had
a
right
of
appeal
under
s.63
of
the
Courts
of
Justice
Act,
1924,
which
provides
that
an
appeal
shall lie
from
the
Circuit
Court
"in
all cases
tried
on
indictment."
In an
attempt
to
accelerate
procedure
in
the
Circuit
Court,
it
was
enacted,
by
s.13
of
the
Criminal
Procedure
Act,
1967,
that
where
a
person
accused
of
an
indictable
offence
in
the
District
Court
signs a
plea
of
guilty,
that
court
may
send
him
on
to
the
Circuit
Court
for
sentence.
In
the
Circuit
Court,
a
person
sent
for-
ward
on
such
a
plea
could
be -
and
the
practice
was
that
he
would
be. -
sentenced
without
being
put
on
indictment.
In
these
circum-
stances, it is clear
that
he was
not
a
person
who
had
been
"tried
on
indictment"
and
it
therefore
followed
that
he
had
no
right
of
appeal
from
the
sentence
imposed
on
him, since
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Court
of
Criminal
Appeal
is
limited
by
s.63
of
the
Act
of
1924
to
"cases
tried
on
indictment."
In The State (Hunt) v. O'Donovan (supra),
the
accused
was
charged
with
entering
adwelling iiouse at
night
with
intent
to
commit
a
robbery
and
with
assault. He signed a
plea
of
guilty
and
was
sent
on
for
sentence
to
the
Circuit
Court,
where
he was
sentenced
to
two
years'
imprisonment.
He served
notice
of
an
application
for
leave
to
appeal
against
the
severity
of
his
sentence,
but
the
Court
of
Criminal
Appeal
ordered
the
application
to
be
struck
out
for
the
(correct)
reason
that
"it
was
not
a case
dealt
with
on
indictment
in
the
Circuit
Court".
The
accused
then
proceeded
by
way
of
habeas corpus,
contending
that
he was
unlawfully
im-
prisoned.
He
claimed
that,
under
s.3(4)
of
Article
34
of
the
Irish
Constitution,
he
had
a
constitutional
right
of
appeal
from
any
court
268
To continue reading
Request your trial