In the Irish Courts
| Date | 01 January 1953 |
| Published date | 01 January 1953 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835301700107 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts
COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEAL
BAIL
AFTER
CONVICTION
A.-G. v. Christopher Kirwan and Michael Kirwan
Amotion for bait
by
aperson who has been convicted
and
sentenced
but
who is appealing has always been
regarded as something very different from such amotion
brought
by
aperson who is awaiting trial.
What
effect
upon this distinction has
the
fact
that
the
trial
Judge
has
granted acertificate of appeal
?-particularly
where, as
in A.-G. v. Christopher Kirwan and Michael Kirwan, such
certificate is granted on
the
ground
that
the
findings of
the
jury
are inconsistent.
In
that
case,
the
appellants were
convicted on two counts (of conspiracy
to
assault
and
of
assault causing grievous bodily harm)
but
were acquitted
on all other counts. They were each sentenced to twelve
months' imprisonment with
hard
labour,
but,
although
the
learned Judge granted acertificate for leave
to
appeal he
refused
to
grant
bail, for which
the
appellants; therefore,
moved Maguire C.]. Their principal argument was
the
tact
that
the
trial judge
had
by
the
nature
of his certificate
virtually indicated
that
he was of opinion
that
the
jury's
verdict could
not
stand. This
the
Chief ] ustice 'admitted
to
be
"an
element of great weight",
but
he concluded
that
"that
factor alone is
not
sufficient
to
dispose of
the
difter-
ences between a person who has already been convicted
and
one who is merely awaiting trial".
In
spite of such a
certificate,
the
two cases remain very different, for, although
the certificate
"tended
to
redress
the
balance", never-
theless
"the
fact
that
the
applicants were convicted
by
a
jury
weighed down
the
scales heavily against them".
The
question remains in each case, therefore, one of considering
the
balancing factors mentioned in
the
precedents,
but
regarding each in
the
light of
the
circumstances peculiar
to
each case.
71
To continue reading
Request your trial