Which Court?

hblock21

Hi,
Can anyone tell me which court this photo may have been taken in i.e. superior, lower, etc?
Please ignore the fact that there is double exposure involved.
Also please note that the judge is wearing a black hat.
Thanks

Beano

Best of luck trying to figure that out. I couldnt even say if it was english or irish. The only thing you can say for certain is that he is passing a death sentence hence the black cloth on his wig.

hblock21

Ok. Well as the photo has been in my family for at least 40-50 years and before that in my g.grandfathers possession, you can add another unknown amount of years to the 50 here, I would say it is an Irish court.

Taking the black hat thing and running with it....what courts in Ireland say 50-80 years ago passed death sentences?

Beano

hblock21 wrote: »

Ok. Well as the photo has been in my family for at least 40-50 years and before that in my g.grandfathers possession, you can add another unknown amount of years to the 50 here, I would say it is an Irish court.

Taking the black hat thing and running with it....what courts in Ireland say 50-80 years ago passed death sentences?

The high court presumably. But that doesnt neccesarily imply it was in the four courts as the high court can sit elsewhere and still be the high court.

Grolschevik

Very interesting pic!

The coat, collar and tie on the Wolverine-lookalike at the front look very 19th century.

The apparent grey hat to the front right looks to be of a sort that wasn't that popular til the '20s. Is that a result of the double exposure?

You might get somewhere by trying to work out the nature of the police uniform at the back, depending on which exposure he's in: but, since that looks to me to be mid 20th century English, I dunno how far you'd get!

hullaballoo

You might get more informed responses from the History and Heritage forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=330

FWIW, it looks like 1920s Ireland to me. That being the case, it might be post-civil war pre-1937 constitution Ireland. It's certainly an interesting picture.

Beano

It looks to me like it is a photo of the judges in the dock (actually the fact there appear to be 3 judges might be a clue as to what court it is) with a double exposure of the man in the dock over it. The pic makes it look like the dock is in front of the bench but i dont think that would be the case.

coylemj

Wouldn't the three judges suggests that it's an appeal court? It can't be the Irish Special Criminal Court because back when they were handing down death sentences, the junior judge was a District Justice and they didn't wear wigs.

Court of Criminal Appeal, the accused's appeal has just been dismissed and the presiding judge is setting the new date for the execution.

Of course it's more likely a still from a movie or a publicity shot for a theatrical production.

Beano

coylemj wrote: »

Wouldn't the three judges suggests that it's an appeal court? It can't be the Irish Special Criminal Court because back when they were handing down death sentences, the junior judge was a District Justice and they didn't wear wigs.

Court of Criminal Appeal, the accused's appeal has just been dismissed and the presiding judge is setting the new date for the execution.

Of course it's more likely a still from a movie or a publicity shot for a theatrical production.

but would they be handing down a death sentence in an appeal court? perhaps the sentence was appealed by the prosecution as too lenient.

coylemj

Beano wrote: »

but would they be handing down a death sentence in an appeal court? perhaps the sentence was appealed by the prosecution as too lenient.

Courts in England and Ireland have never had a discretion over passing the death sentence so leniency was never part of the equation. Once a jury returned a conviction for murder, the judge's hands were tied as is the case today with the life sentence.

In Ireland up to a few years ago, it was open to a jury or the Special Criminal Court in a case of capital murder (of a Garda or prison officer) to return a verdict of 'ordinary' murder but the judge had no say in the matter.

Beano

coylemj wrote: »

Courts in England and Ireland have never had a discretion over passing the death sentence so leniency was never part of the equation. Once a jury returned a conviction for murder, the judge's hands were tied as is the case today with the life sentence.

but would that not mean that it couldnt be an appeal court?

hblock21

Due to the double exposure effect, its difficult to make out what the real photo is. The defendant though would always be surely facing or looking at the bench. So if you exclude the guy standing at the front, could the accused be the guy at the lower left corner with his head bowed.

The movie set thing has been mentioned to me before, but I cannot go along with that as this photo has been in the family for circa 50 years and more. It’s not something that has been planted in my uncle’s house or anything! My ancestor is the guy sitting but I would say he is part of another photo maybe.

My ancestor supposedly had something to do with the War of Independence and kangaroo courts. But this does not look like a Kangaroo court.

If it is a real photo and I have to believe it is, why would my ancestor have a photo of a judge passing a death sentence. Having a photo like this must be uncommon if not non-existent?

Beano

hblock21 wrote: »

Due to the double exposure effect, its difficult to make out what the real photo is. The defendant though would always be surely facing or looking at the bench. So if you exclude the guy standing at the front, could the accused be the guy at the lower left corner with his head bowed.

The movie set thing has been mentioned to me before, but I cannot go along with that as this photo has been in the family for circa 50 years and more. It’s not something that has been planted in my uncle’s house or anything! My ancestor is the guy sitting but I would say he is part of another photo maybe.

My ancestor supposedly had something to do with the War of Independence and kangaroo courts. But this does not look like a Kangaroo court.

If it is a real photo and I have to believe it is, why would my ancestor have a photo of a judge passing a death sentence. Having a photo like this must be uncommon if not non-existent?

I think the photo is pretty much as i described it. A photo of the bench with a photo of the guy in the dock imposed over it. you can see the dock around the guy in the foreground.

coylemj

Beano wrote: »

but would that not mean that it couldnt be an appeal court?

I don't get your point. If you're convicted of murder, you can appeal the verdict but not the sentence so an appeal is perfectly normal and in the case of a death sentence pretty much a given - nothing to lose and all that. Typical grounds of appeal were the same as they are today in the case of jury verdicts viz. that certain evidence should have been admitted or excluded or that the judge's charge to the jury was defective.

The only death sentence case I can think of where there was no appeal was John Amery who was convicted of treason after WW II, he pleaded guilty and was hanged three weeks later.

Beano

coylemj wrote: »

I don't get your point. If you're convicted of murder, you can appeal the verdict but not the sentence so an appeal is perfectly normal and in the case of a death sentence pretty much a given - nothing to lose and all that.

The only death sentence case I can think of where there was no appeal was John Amery who was convicted of treason after WW II, he pleaded guilty and was hanged three weeks later.

but the sentence would be given at the original hearing. the appeal court would only be affirming the original sentence so no need for the black cloth.

coylemj

Beano wrote: »

but the sentence would be given at the original hearing. the appeal court would only be affirming the original sentence so no need for the black cloth.

Maybe. However in the original trial with a jury, there's clearly no need for three judges so what are those three people doing on the bench?

Moving on to non-legal matters, I can't for the life of me see how someone could take a photo inside a courtroom 50 years ago without being noticed so it's difficult to accept that it's a real court in session passing a death sentence.

234

coylemj wrote: »

Maybe. However in the original trial with a jury, there's clearly no need for three judges so what are those three people doing on the bench?

Go back 100 years and there was far more fluidity be between which judges sat at which curt levels. Important cases, including criminal ones, could be presided over by a divisional court even at first instance.

Moving on to non-legal matters, I can't for the life of me see how someone could take a photo inside a courtroom 50 years ago without being noticed so it's difficult to accept that it's a real court in session passing a death sentence.

Agreed re this. OP, 50 years ago is only 1964, so it's certainly possible that this was for a film/play set before then. I would have to say pre-1924 based on the full bottomed wigs and the old-style robes that the senior presiding judge is wearing. It looks like the old scarlet robes of the pre-independence High Court. I doubt that it was one of the courts convened during the civil war as I always thought that they were presided over by military personnel who were dressed in uniform.

hblock21

234 wrote: »

Agreed re this. OP, 50 years ago is only 1964, so it's certainly possible that this was for a film/play set before then. I would have to say pre-1924 based on the full bottomed wigs and the old-style robes that the senior presiding judge is wearing. It looks like the old scarlet robes of the pre-independence High Court. I doubt that it was one of the courts convened during the civil war as I always thought that they were presided over by military personnel who were dressed in uniform.

I'm not saying that the photo must have been taken in the 60’s, only that it is defiantly in our families possession since then. But as it was in my g.grandfathers possession and he died 1972 in his 90’s, I can only muse that he had it for decades before the 1960’s.

I hear what people are saying about the film set thing but I'm just not going to accept that just yet.... it looks to real, if you know what I mean. Would they really think of putting a black hat on the judge in a film??

I can only go on the basis that my g.grandfather was there in the 'real' courtroom. why he would have this photo, I haven't a clue but its the one of just a handful of photos that he thought fit to keep.

coylemj

hblock21 wrote: »

Would they really think of putting a black hat on the judge in a film??

You bet they would, it was an essential part of the drama. The jury files back into the court from the jury room, the clerk asks the foreman if they have reached a verdict ('we have m'lud'), the accused is ordered to stand up, the foreman announces the verdict 'guilty' (gasps from the public gallery, the mother or girlfriend of the accused faints), the tipstaff then places the black cap on the judge and the sentence of death is passed.

234

hblock21 wrote: »

I'm not saying that the photo must have been taken in the 60’s, only that it is defiantly in our families possession since then. But as it was in my g.grandfathers possession and he died 1972 in his 90’s, I can only muse that he had it for decades before the 1960’s.

I hear what people are saying about the film set thing but I'm just not going to accept that just yet.... it looks to real, if you know what I mean. Would they really think of putting a black hat on the judge in a film??

I can only go on the basis that my g.grandfather was there in the 'real' courtroom. why he would have this photo, I haven't a clue but its the one of just a handful of photos that he thought fit to keep.

The black cap is a well known piece of trivia so it's entirely plausible. At the moment, unless you have any evidence to the contrary, the film/play explanation is the most plausible. The taking of photographs has never been allowed in courts in Ireland or the UK, so it would have been very unlikely that somebody using the large and cumbersome photography equipment of that period could have taken a photograph of proceedings, let alone two (double exposure) from different angles from different ends of the courtroom.

coylemj

234 wrote: »

..... it would have been very unlikely that somebody using the large and cumbersome photography equipment of that period could have taken a photograph of proceedings, let alone two (double exposure) from different angles from different ends of the courtroom.

+1 And with all the black gowns (judges and barristers), (dark) wood panelling and desks, (dark) police & prison officer uniforms etc., a flash would have been essential thereby making it even less likely to be a photo of a real court case. No way could someone with a hand-held camera and no flash take a photo of a court case without it coming out completely blurred thanks to the long exposure required to capture an image.

MarkAnthony

Does anyone else notice (as if it wasn't grim enough) that the double exposure makes it look like the grim reapers scith is in the pic.

Very, very interesting OP!

hblock21

MarkAnthony wrote: »

.

Very, very interesting OP!

It is but alias I'm putting it down as a theatrical production with the audience superimposed for now. Maybe more information will come to light in the future.

Anyway, thanks all for your interest and comments.

Grolschevik

coylemj wrote: »

I can't for the life of me see how someone could take a photo inside a courtroom 50 years ago without being noticed so it's difficult to accept that it's a real court in session passing a death sentence.

234 wrote: »

The taking of photographs has never been allowed in courts in Ireland or the UK, so it would have been very unlikely that somebody using the large and cumbersome photography equipment of that period could have taken a photograph of proceedings, let alone two (double exposure) from different angles from different ends of the courtroom.

Substantially more than 50 years ago is the OP's judgement.

If it was before 1925, photography in the courtroom might have been a runner. Haven’t gone looking for any earlier prohibition of photography in a courtroom (link to (English) 1925 Criminal Justice Act below), but in the relatively early days of photography, it mightn’t have been explicitly legislated against.

I don’t really buy the theatre/movie thing. There’s a fair amount of detail in the upholstery of the centre judge's chair, for example, and I can’t see them going for that much attention to detail on the slightly different wigs etc in what people seem to be implying is a ‘now-unknown-but-within-the-last-60-years’ movie still/publicity shot.

What that comes down to, is that it comes across as genuine to me.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/86

41 Prohibition on taking photographs, &c., in court.
(1)No person shall—
(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or
(b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;
and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(2)For the purposes of this section—
(a)the expression “court” means any court of justice, including the court of a coroner:
(b)the expression “Judge” includes . . . F38, registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner:
(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.

hblock21

Grolschevik wrote: »

Substantially more than 50 years ago is the OP's judgement.

If it was before 1925, photography in the courtroom might have been a runner. Haven’t gone looking for any earlier prohibition of photography in a courtroom (link to (English) 1925 Criminal Justice Act below), but in the relatively early days of photography, it mightn’t have been explicitly legislated against.

What that comes down to, is that it comes across as genuine to me

p.

Hurrah, a supporter at last!! Wouldn't it be fantastic if it is for real.

I agree it looks fantastically real. If it is a theatrical production, this place has money to burn. My ancestor is from Tipperary so for it to be a play I would imagine it would need to be in Tipp or thereabouts. Is this photo from a court in Tipp, don't know but my ancestor was given it either way. I would like to mention however he did go to Dublin for some period, we believe in the 1910's.

And yes, thank you, I am not saying its a photo from the 60's but a photo from possibly well before than, possibly decades. This man died aged in his 90's in the early 1970's. One could presume he had this photo in his possession for decades and decades.

braddun

I wonder was it Special Criminal Court in Collins Barracks,or
Green Street Courthouse in Dublin (still in use as the Special Criminal Court)

Between November 1923 and April 1954, there were a total of 35 executions in the state

the 1920s, execution was relatively common for murderers As had happened before independence, the British executioner came to Mountjoy to perform hangings During the state of emergency in World War II, increased IRA activity led to six executions Charlie Kerins was hanged, while five were shot by firing squad after sentence by military tribunals under Emergency legislation Of these, Maurice O' Neill and Richard Goss had shot but not killed Gardaí: the only people executed by the state for a non-murder crime

Peregrinus

I agree that the man standing in the foreground is probably the defendant and he is standing in the dock. He is standing to be sentenced. To his right and behind him is a standing man in a uniform of some kind; most likely a prison warder. The defendant would in fact have been facing the judge, but two photographs have been juxtaposed to get both judge and defendant in the same picture.

From the defendant's style of dress this is a nineteenth or early twentieth century photograph; the sidburns point to the nineteenth. The grey hat seen on the clerk's bench seems to be a trilby; they were common in the later nineteenth century.

I wouldn't assume that the three guys in full-bottomed wigs are all judges. One of them may be a barrister fulfilling some court-clerk type function; the other may be the chaplain (whose role it was to place the black cap on the judge's head for pronunciation of death sentence).

As others have said, this is a sentencing at the conclusion of a trial. There would be no black cap at the hearing of an appeal, regardless of outcome.

I'm guessing that this is an English or Irish assize court of the late nineteenth century, in which case it could be almost any courthouse) or it could be the Central Criminal Court in London (the Old Bailey). And if it's the latter one of the bewigged gentlemen might be one of the City Sheriffs.

hblock21

What about the bulky looking object behind the judges chair. Is that not a radiator? What do you think it is?

Going back to the idea of a scene from a play - Would there be a radiator at the back of a stage in this position? My first reaction would be no because a stage is always a clear open area. But as this scene is obviously very old maybe theatrical production companies had to sometimes use different locations/buildings to do a play.

Sclosages

hblock21 wrote: »

What about the bulky looking object behind the judges chair. Is that not a radiator? What do you think it is?

Organ pipes.

Sclosages

I have to say though that I still contend that it is a photo taken of a photo/painting behind a glass. With your grandfather looking rather bored, as one might be at a museum being reflected in the glass and a sithe or some such implement in the glass case behind, and it all somehow ending up reflected in the present photo.

Beano

Sclosages wrote: »

I have to say though that I still contend that it is a photo taken of a photo/painting behind a glass. With your grandfather looking rather bored, as one might be at a museum being reflected in the glass and a sithe or some such implement in the glass case behind, and it all somehow ending up reflected in the present photo.

There is no scythe. that is the edge of the dock.

Sclosages

Beano wrote: »

There is no scythe. that is the edge of the dock.

The white glarey shape of a scythe running up through the middle of the photo and chopping off the head of the judge on the right?

Beano

Sclosages wrote: »

The white glarey shape of a scythe running up through the middle of the photo and chopping off the head of the judge on the right?

look at the pic again. the guy in the foreground is leaning on a wooden rail. if you continue along that rail to the right you come to what you see as a scythe, correct? Look closer. it is the edge of the dock that curves up. It is clearly part of the same structure that the guy is leaning on.

Sclosages

Beano wrote: »

look at the pic again. the guy in the foreground is leaning on a wooden rail. if you continue along that rail to the right you come to what you see as a scythe, correct? Look closer. it is the edge of the dock that curves up. It is clearly part of the same structure that the guy is leaning on.

Eh no.

Sclosages

Btw - I can also see the body of Jesus Christ in this photo.

hblock21

Beano wrote: »

look at the pic again. the guy in the foreground is leaning on a wooden rail. if you continue along that rail to the right you come to what you see as a scythe, correct? Look closer. it is the edge of the dock that curves up. It is clearly part of the same structure that the guy is leaning on.

No I don't think so, its not part of the court benches. Its bright and has rivets along it. I reflection of something I would imagine.

Beano

hblock21 wrote: »

No I don't think so, its not part of the court benches. Its bright and has rivets along it. I reflection of something I would imagine.

i didnt say it was part of the court benches. i said it was the side of the dock.

Beano

Sclosages wrote: »

Btw - I can also see the body of Jesus Christ in this photo.

Jesus christ is definitely a phrase i think is appropriate right now.

Peregrinus

hblock21 wrote: »

No I don't think so, its not part of the court benches. Its bright and has rivets along it. I reflection of something I would imagine.

Why wold there be rivets along the handle of a scythe?

This is part of the court furnishings. The bloke in the foreground is standing in the dock, resesting his hads along the front rail. The back of the dock is much higher than the front - probably there is a public gallery behind and above - and so the sides of the dock (only one side is in the photograph) rise sharply towards the back. They connect/merge into the curved handrail of the gallery above and behind, which is what some people are mistaking for the blade of a scuthe. Below the curved handrail you can see wood panelling. This is all faint/translucent because it is superimposed on the photgraph of the judge, etc, on the bench.

About half-way down this page is a photograph of Green Street courtroom. It doesn't actually show the dock, but you can see how there are different levels of galleries, benches and so forth, and how the whole courtroom is fitted out in wood panelling and the panels and handrails curve up, down and to the side to connect the various levels. That's the kind of thing we're seeing here.

And I think the structure behind the judge is not a radiator. It's ornamental panelling on the back wall of the court, into which is integrated the back of his chair.

Peregrinus

And one other thought occurs to me out of left field.

Given that what we have here is two photographs in one print, it may not be the case that they are two photographs of the same event.

At the right of the picuture we have a rather shady image of what looks to me like a lady sitting in a chair with papers on her knee. She is wearing a calf-length skirt, and her ensemble looks to me to be from the 1920s at the earliest, and more suggestive of the 1930s.

But the bloke in the dock is wearing a high collar and black stock, and what looks like a frock-coat - not later than the 1910s.

Hermy

Peregrinus wrote: »

At the right of the picuture we have a rather shady image of what looks to me like a lady sitting in a chair with papers on her knee. She is wearing a calf-length skirt, and her ensemble looks to me to be from the 1920s at the earliest, and more suggestive of the 1930s.

Hardly a stenographer?

Peregrinus

Hermy wrote: »

Hardly a stenographer?

I doubt it. I don't know that criminal courts had stenographers back then, but if they did they were at least given a table or bench to ply their trade; they didn't have to write on their knees. I'm thinking she's a newspaper reporter - another factor which suggests that her part of the photolgraph, at least, must be comparatively modern. There weren't many women legal correspondents before the Great War, I'm reasonably certain.