R v O'Connell and Others (conspiracy)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date04 September 1844
Date04 September 1844
CourtState Trial Proceedings
33 Edw. 1. Ordin. de Consp.
18 Eliz. c. 12. Nisi Prius, Middlesex
21 Jas. 1. c. 13. Jeofails
7 & 8 Will. 3. c. 3. The Treason Act, 1695
7 Ann. c. 21. The Treason Act, 1708
6 Geo. 1. c. 5. Dependency of Ireland on Great Britain
5 Geo. 3. c. 21. (Irish) Treason Trials
22 Geo. 3. c. 53. Repeal of Act for securing dependency of Ireland
23 Geo. 3. c. 28. Renunciation Act
33 Geo. 3. c. 29. (Irish) Irish Convention Act
39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 67. Act of Union with Ireland
41 Geo. 3. c. 14. Suppression of Irish Rebellion
41 Geo. 3. c. 15. Habeas Corpus Suspension Act
47 Geo. 3. sess. 2. c. 13. Insurrection Act, 1807
47 Geo. 3. sess. 2. c. 54. Arms Bill (Ireland)
56 Geo. 3. c. 87. Evidence : Grand Jury
60 Geo. 3. & 1 Geo. 4. c. 4. Misdemeanor
6 Geo. 4. c. 4. Unlawful Societies (Ireland)
6 Geo. 4. c. 50. The Juries Act, 1825
6 Geo. 4. c. 51. Criminal Law : Prisoner
10 Geo. 4. c. 1. Dangerous Assemblies (Ireland)
10 Geo. 4. c. 7. Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1829
1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 31. Judicature Act, 1831 (Ireland)
2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 45. Reform Act, 1832
2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 70. Arms Act (Ireland)
2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 118. Party Processions (Ireland)
3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 91. Jury Act, 1833 (Ireland)
6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 76. Newspaper Act, 1836
6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 114. Prisoners” Counsel Act, 1836
1 & 2 Vict. c. 37. Criminal Law : Evidence : Grand Jury, Ireland
6 & 7 Vict. c. 85. Declaration: Witness
8 & 9 Vict. c. 68. Bail in error
11 & 12 Vict. c. 78. The Crown Cases Act, 1848
16 & 17 Vict. c. 32. Criminal Law : Error, Recognisances
38 & 39 Vict. c. 86. & 7. Conspiracy, Protection of property
44 & 45 Vict. c. 59. Petitions of Right
44 & 45 Vict. c. 60. Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881
THE QUEEN against O”CONNELL AND OTHERS. TRIAL AT BAR OF DANIEL O”CONNELL, M.P., JOHN O”CONNELL, M.P., THOMAS STEELE, THOMAS MATTHEW RAY, CHARLES GAVAN DUFFY, THE REVEREND PETER THOMAS TIERNEY, THE REVEREND PETER JAMES TYRRELL, JOHN GRAY, AND RICHARD BARRETT, IN THE COURT OF QUEEN”S BENCH, DUBLIN, BEF-ORE PENN EFATHER, L.C.J., BURTON, CRAMPTON, AND PERRIN, JJ., FOR A SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY, IN MICHAELMAS TERM 1843, HIL ARY TERM 1844, AND THE FOLLOWING DAYS. (Reported in 1 Cox C.C. 365.) PROCEE:DINGS IN THE SAME COURT ON MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT, APRIL 19, 1844, AND THE FOLLOWING DAYS. (Reported in 7 Ir. L. R. 261.) PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON WRIT OF ERROR, JULY 4, 1844, AND THE FOLLOWING DAYS. (Reported in 11 C. & F. 155 and 1 Cox C.C. 413.) In Michaelmas Term, 1843, an indictment was preferred in the Court of Queen”s Bench in Ireland at the instance of the Attorney General against Daniel O”Connell and seven others, charging them with entering into a seditious conspiracy, by the alleged illegal means stated in the indictment, to bring about the repeal of the Act of Union. The defendants were found guilty and sentenced to fine and imprisonment, but the judgment was afterwards reversed by the House of Lords on writ of error. 1. Indictment. Good and bad counts. Bad finding. General Judgment. By ele House of Lords (against the opinion of the majority of the Judges), per Lords Delman, L.C.J., Cottenham and Campbell, diss. Lords Lyndhurst, L.C., and Brougham. On an indictment containing good and bad counts, where there is a verdict of guilty generally, a general judgment upon the defendant "for his offences aforesaid " is bad.(a) A bad finding on a good count stands on the same footing as a good finding on a bad count. 2. Seditious Conspiracy. Count bad for Uncertainty. Bad finding on good count. By the House of Lords, in accordance with the advice of the Judges. On an indictment for a criminal conspiracy, counts charging (1) a conspiracy to raise discontent and disaffection among the liege subjects of the Queen ; (2) a conspiracyta excite jealousies, hatred, and between different classes of Her Majesty”s subjects, and especially so to excite the inhabitants of Ireland against their fellow-subjects in Eng- I Ind, (3) a conspiracy to excite discontent and disaffection in divers of Her Majesty”s subjects serving in Her Majesty”s army, are good. A count charging (4) a conspiracy " to cause and procure divers subjects to meet together in large numbers for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining by means of the intimidation to he thereby caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstration of great physical force at such meetings, changes in the Government, laws, and constitution of the realm," is bad for uncertainty, because (a) the word "intimidation " has not necessarily a bad sense, and it is not shown what species of intimidation was to be used, Or who were to be intimidated; and (3) the further allegation that changes in the law were to be obtained by the exhibition and demonstration of great physical force without stating that force was to he used or threatened, carries the matter no further. Counts charging (5) a conspiracy to diminish confidence in the administration of the law in Ireland, and to bring the tribunals by law established into hatred and disrepute, ( 6) a conspiracy to assemble meetings, and by means of seditious speeches at such meetings and by seditious publications to intimidate Parliament, and thereby to bring about changes in the laws and constitution of the realm as by law established, are good. On a count charging eight defendants with unlawfully conspiring to effect five of the above alleged illegal objects, a finding that all the defendants conspired to effect object 1, that seven conspired to effect objects 2, 3 and 4, and that three conspired to effect object 5, is bad, as being a finding of three conspiracies where only one is charged.(b) (a) See Campbell v. Reg., 11 Q. B. 799; Gregory v. Reg., 15 Q. B. 957; Holloway v. Reg., 2 Den. 237, and 17 Q. B. 314 ; Latham v. Reg., 9 Cox C.C. 516; and Mulcahy v. Reg., L. R. 3 H. L. 306. 11 & 12 Viet. c. 78. s. 5 now provides that a court of error on reversing judgment may pronounce the proper judgment or remit the case to the court below for that purpose. (b) See Req. v. Manning, 12 Q. B. D. 241. 73”181. 750 - A 3] The Queen against O”Connell and others, 1843-4. 3. Plea in Abatement. By the House of Lords in accordance with the advice of the Judges. A. plea in abatement”must be pleaded with precise and strict exactness a plea alleging that the witnesses before the grand jury had not been sworn in open court pursuant to statute, but not giving the names of such witnesses, or alleging that they were not entitled to affirm, or that no other witnesses were heard, held bad. 4. Challenge to the Array. Motion to quash the Panel. Whether the fact that the general list of persons duly found qualified and liable to act as jurors had not been properly made out pursuant to 3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 91, but that instead a list omitting the names of sixty persons found duly qualified had been made out illegally and fraudulently by some person or persons unknown for the purpose of prejudicing the defendants in the case, is a good ground of challenge quare. AffLord Denman, L.C.J., and Lord Campbell. /Veg. Lord Lyndhurst, L.C., and Lord Brougham, in accordance with the advice of the majority of the Judges.(a) By the Court of Queen”s Bench in Ireland. Motions to quash the panel and for an order directed to the recorder requiring him to amend such general list of jurors by the addition of the omitted names, refused. 5. Evidence. By the Court of Queen”s Bench in Ireland. On an indictment for conspiracy against A, B, and others, where certain meetings and speeches were charged as overt acts of the conspiracy. Reports in a newspaper published by A of alleged meetings, and of speeches alleged to have been delivered at such meetings by B, are admissible in evidence against B, as published in pursuance of the common object, there being other evidence of the participation in the conspiracy of both A and B ; and also (per Pennefather, L.C.J.) are admissible against B to prove that such meetings had in fact taken place and such speeches had been in fact delivered. Per Perrin, J. (disc.), such reports of meetings and speeches were improperly left to the jury as evidence against B of his participation in the alleged conspiracy.(b) An inscription on an arch erected in the neighbourhood of such a meeting, and a ballad hawked about for sale at such a meeting, are admissible in evidence as part of the res gesta, and as showing the character of the meeting, without proving that the inscription or the ballad were brought to the knowledge of the defendants or any of them. Expressions used within au hour after such a meeting, and about half-a-mile from the platform, by persons not proved to have taken part in the meeting, are not admissible in evidence. On an indictment for a conspiracy to withdraw business from the Courts, and to bring them into contempt, and to usurp the prerogative of the Crown in the establishment of Courts of Justice, the rules regarding arbitration adopted by the Society of Friends are admissible in evidence on behalf of the defendants to negative the alleged criminal intent (diNs. Crampton, J.) And see Index, " Evidence." 6. Judgment. .Recognizances. Whether a form of judgment requiring the defendant to enter into recognizances conditioned to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the space of seven years next ensuing the acknowledgement thereof, is good no period being fixed for entering into the recognizances (per Lord Campbell) qucere. 7. Practice. Attorney General. Right of Reply.(c) By the House of Lords. On writ of error the Attorney General has not necessarily the right of reply. By the Court of Queen”s Bench in Ireland. The Attorney General has in Ireland the right of reply in all cases. 8. Indictments under 60 Geo. 3. e. 4. 7”ime foe Pleading.(d) See pp. 22, 41, 43, 45. 9. Copy of indictment under 60 Geo. 3. c. 4 may be compared with original record not to include caption (see p. 28) or names of witnesses on the back of the bill (see p. 24) such names not given by the Court in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Law Society of Ireland v Walker
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 juillet 2006
    ... ... talents and his judgment; but all through he never forgets what he owes to himself and to others. He will not knowingly mistake the law - he will not wilfully misstate the facts, though it be to ... ...
  • R Bromberg v Patrick O'Brien [NTR]
    • Australia
    • Supreme Court
    • 28 septembre 1990
    ...(1906) 4 CLR 126 Cases distinguished: R v Gregory (1972) 2 All ER 861 R v O'Brien 1981 WAR 305 Cases referred to: O'Connell's case (1844) 5 St Tr (n.s.) 1 Vaux v Brook (1586) 4 Co Rep 396: 76 ER 982 Criminal law — Practice and Procedure Criminal Law — Practice and Procedure — framing of in......
  • Culzean Inventions Ltd. v. Midwestern Broom Co., Midwestern Marketing Canada Ltd., Semenchuk, Janzen, Glazier and Astle, (1984) 31 Sask.R. 180 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • 13 janvier 1984
    ...fully in Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.), vol. IV, s. 1079. The following excerpt from the decision in the case of R. v. O'Connell (1843), 5 St. Tr. (N.S.) 1 at p. 710, is quoted by Wigmore : 'When evidence is once given to the jury of a conspiracy, against A, B, and C, whatever is done by A,......
  • Boucher v. the King, [1951] SCR 265
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 18 décembre 1950
    ...C.C. 1. [30] 4 B. & A. 95; 106 E.R. 873. [31] (1886) 16 Cox C.C. 355. [32] 85 Sol. Jo. 252. [33] (1881-82) 9 Q.B.D. 308. [34] (1843) 5 St. Tr. (N.S.) 1. [35] (1787) 22 St. Tr. [36] (1839) 3 St. Tr. (N.S.) 1149. [37] (1765) Wilm. 243; 97 E.R. 94. [38] [1899] A.C. 549. [39] [1900] 2 Q.B. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT