Supreme Court allows appeal against conviction for perjury where witness lied about prior conviction.
Irland (IE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Supreme Court allowed the applicant's appeal against his conviction for perjury, overturning the lower court's decision. The applicant argued that the trial judge erred in accepting evidence regarding a prior conviction that was not properly established. The court held that the judge correctly applied the law by requiring corroboration for such evidence, thereby validating the original conviction.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertSections 10 and 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994; A witness's statement of a prior conviction is admissible only if supported by corroborating evidence, and a conviction based on such unsupported evidence is invalid.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVolltext
THE SUPREME COURT
Keane C.J.
Hardiman J.
Fennelly J.
288/00 & 21/01
BETWEEN:
PATRICK BLANCHFIELD
APPLICANT/APPELLANT
AND
JUDGE WILLIAM HARTNETT, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND HIS HONOUR JUDGE C KELLY
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT delivered the 16th day of May, 2002 by Keane C.J.
I have read the judgment to be delivered by Fennelly J in this matter. I agree entirely with his conclusions, the order he proposes and
the reasons set out in his judgment. I wish to do no more that comment briefly on the decision in Slattery’s Limited -v- Commissioner
of Valuation and Another and His Honour Judge Liam Devally (unreported; judgements delivered 13th July 2001) referred to in his
judgment.
As Fennelly J points out, the English decision of Wandsworth London Borough Council -v- Winder [1985] AC 461 was held to be
distinguishable in Slattery, because the body whose determination was being challenged, i.e., the Commissioner of Valuation, was not
a party to the proceedings. Moreover, the relevant proceedings were not criminal proceedings.
There is a further distinction to which I would wish to draw attention. The proceedings in Slattery were for the recovery of rates. It
was laid down in the leading case of Guardians of the New Ross Union -v- Byrne (130 LR (Ir.) 160) that, where premises are occupied
by the person rated, no objection as to excess or exemption can be raised by the rated occupier against a rate good on its face,
save by appeal. It is only where a rate is made in respect of premises of which the person rated is not the occupier that the person
rated can set up the invalidity of the rate by way of defence. Accordingly, even if the Commissioner of Valuation had been joined as a
defendant in the proceedings for the recovery of the rates in that case, the result would have been no different.