Supreme Court in Eire
| Published date | 01 February 1985 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838504900110 |
| Date | 01 February 1985 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
SUPREME
COURT
IN
EIRE
ADMISSION OF STATEMENT
MADE
WHILE IN DETENTION
The People v. Kelly
(No.2)
In
Eire,
a
member
of the police force may interrogate
and
arrest a
person whom he suspects of having committed an offence
under
the
Offences against the State
Act
1939: see section
30(1).
Section
30(3)
further
provides
that
aperson so
arrested
may be detained in
custody in a police station, prison
or
some
other
convenient place
for 24 hours
and
may be
"so
detained"
for a further 24 hours if an
officer
not
below
the
rank
of
Chief
Superintendent
so directs. A
police officer may
demand
from aperson
detained
under
section 30
a full account of his movements
and
actions during any specified
period
and
all information in his possession relating to the
commission
(or
intended
commission) by
another
of an offence
against
the
Act.
The
proper
interpretationof these provisions was in
question in The People v. Kelly
(No.2)
[1983] I.R. 1, 17, for
the
appellant's conviction of stealing mailbags
and
of stopping atrain
with
intent
to rob the mail
depended
on confessions
made
by him
which he alleged were inadmissible because they were
obtained
in
breach of
the
terms of
the
1939
Act.
When first
arrested,
the appellant was detained in a police
station,from wherehe was successively removed to two
other
police
stations.
The
document
which authorised his
detention
for a second
period of 24 hours described him as being
detained
at a
named
station which was
not
the
one
where he was when
the
document was
issued.
At
the
trial, the first two statements admitted were oral and,
in breach of
the
Judges' Rules,
had
not
been
reduced to writing or
signed by
the
appellant. His third
statement,
however, was written
down and was signed by him
and
this was a comprehensive
statement which incriminated him.
He
was then released from
custody
under
section
30
by a detective sergeant.
He
was promptly
re-arrested at common law
and
was held in custody until late
that
night, although acourt before which he could have
been
brought
was sitting during
that
day. In respect of each of these facts he
54
To continue reading
Request your trial