The Kirwan case : illustrating the danger of conviction on circumstantial evidence, and the necessity of granting new trials in criminal cases.

Date:
1853
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Kirwan case : illustrating the danger of conviction on circumstantial evidence, and the necessity of granting new trials in criminal cases. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    34/122 (page 34)
    Trial of William Bourhe Kivu-an. COUNSEL FOR THE CRO^VN AND THE DEFENCE. The counsel prosecuting on behalf of the croAvn were: Mr. Sniyly, Q.C., Mr. Ilayes, Q.C., and Mr. John Pennefather. The counsel for the defence were, Mr. Butt, Q.C., Walter Bourke, Q.C., Mr. Brereton, Q.C., and IMi-. John A. Curran. SPEECH OF COUNSEL FOR THE CROW. Mr. Smyly, Q.C., then proceeded to open the case for the pro.se- cution. He said that imtil an hour previously he was under the ex- pectation that the Attorney-General would be there to state the case to the jury on the part of the prosecution; and that he (Mr. Smyly) was then called on, in the absence of the right hon. gentleman, to put the jury in possession of such of the leading facts and circum- stances of the case as would enable them to understand the evidence when laid before them in a more detailed manner. They bad al- ready heard from the Clerk of the Cro^vn that the prisoner was indicted for the murder of Maria Kinvan, she being his Avife. They Avere married twelve years ago, but had no family, and at the time of her death Mr. Kiinvan resided at No. 11, Upper Merrion-street, in this city. In stating so mnch, he thought he had stated enough to make them feel the case to be one of the,greatest importance, not only to the prisoner himself, put also as regarded the administration of pnblic justice and the protection of the lives of her ]Majesty’s sub- jects ; and for these reasons, therefore, they Avere bound to give the best consideration in their poAver to the evidence AA^hich Avould be laid before them. Nor Avas it the nature of the case alone Avhich demanded their attention, but the nature of the evidence upon which that case was to be supported. The evidence Avhich the CroAvn intended to adduce in the present instance Avas not Avhat Avas called, in the language of the legal profession, direct, but circumstantial evidence. The jmy would understand at once that direct eAudence, from its very nature, Avas the evidence of persons Avho had actually seen the crime committed, the shot fired, the bloAV struck, or the in- jury inflicted, Avhich had occasioned the death of the party. But on the other hand, Avhere Avitnesses Avere produced, each of AA^hom stated a set of distinct and independent facts, Avhich, being brought, together Avould naturally lead their minds to a conAUction of the guilt of the party accused, then they had a case Avhich might be termed cii'cum- stantial evidence; and he AA'Ould teU them, under the direction of the coui't, that upon this species of eAudence a jiuy might act Avith the same safety as if it had been altogether direct. In sajnug that the case Avas important from the natm’e of the crime, he also told that it Avas committed upon the Avife of the prisoner at the bar, upon the person Avhom, of all others, it Avas his duty to cherish and pro- tect. In the present instance, hoAvever, he Avas afraid that affection did not go hand hi hand Avith duty, because he apprehended it Avould be proved to their satisfaction, in the coui-se of that trial,