In a 2021 Court of Appeal decision, a 36‑year‑old man convicted of serial sexual assaults in Clondalkin was denied an appeal. The judge upheld convictions for false imprisonment, sexual assault and assault causing harm across three attacks in 2011, 2015 and 2016. The final assault involved a knife and resulted in a victim's hand injury requiring surgery. DNA evidence linked the suspect to all victims, and items such as duct tape and cable ties were found in his van and at the crime scenes. He received a 18‑year‑six‑month sentence, described by the sentencing judge as "brutal and primal" and "premeditated." The appeal was dismissed on all grounds, including alleged breaches of custody regulations and unlawful detention, with the court finding no prejudice or illegality. The defendant will serve a nine‑year supervision period after release.
In a 2017 Circuit Court trial, 43‑year‑old accountant Sidney Sutton of Ashbourne was convicted of four counts of assault, one count of assault causing harm and one count of producing a knife capable of inflicting serious injury. The offences occurred on the early hours of 6 February 2016 when Sutton, after a wedding in Slane, returned home with his partner Edele Aherne. He allegedly pushed her into a taxi, then punched and kicked her in their home, dragged her to the floor, stamped on her legs and finally stabbed her in the leg and shoulder with a knife. Sutton pleaded not guilty, claiming Aherne had assaulted him and self‑harmed. The Court of Appeal heard that he had fallen out with several solicitors and granted an adjournment to 26 April, warning that failure to proceed would result in the appeal being disposed of as abandoned.
An Algerian man, Lounes Ouachek, 50, of Tallaght, pleaded guilty in 2014 to attempting to murder his wife, Ruta, by striking her with a kettlebell on 23 August 2012. He was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, with the final three years suspended, and the sentence was reduced by one year in 2015. In January 2021, Ouachek applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to bring a new appeal after the statutory period had passed. He claimed he was misled by his legal team, that Garda evidence was fabricated, and that he had not understood English or had an interpreter at his hearing. The Court of Appeal, hearing arguments from the Director of Public Prosecutions, found no basis to extend the time and refused his application. The appeal was therefore denied. The case remains at the stage of a denied appeal application.
In a case heard by the Court of Appeal, a 17‑year‑old who pleaded guilty to the murder of his friend Glen 'Ossie' Osborne was sentenced to life detention with a review after ten years. The defendant, who used a knife to stab Osborne on 15 April 2020, will remain at Oberstown Detention Centre until his 18th birthday, when he will be transferred to an adult prison. The judge noted the aggravating factor of the defendant's armed assault and the mitigating factor of his early guilty plea, sorrow, regret and remorse. He also highlighted the defendant's behavioural, boundary and anger issues, describing him as impulsive with a chaotic lifestyle. The Court of Appeal ordered transcripts to be furnished and adjourned the case to 2 March for a full hearing, as the defendant seeks to appeal the severity of the life sentence before he turns 18.
The Court of Appeal upheld a four‑year sentence for a 17‑year‑old unlicensed driver who, after buying a car for €100 the day before, sped through tight turns in a residential area and struck a toddler on 25 March 2019. The child was thrown into the air, left bleeding and lifeless, and suffered severe injuries including a broken collarbone, broken shoulder blade, fractured hip, collapsed lung, brain bleed and permanent traumatic brain injury. He spent eight days in an induced coma, twelve days in intensive care, and remains unable to walk, talk or hold his head, requiring tube feeding. The defendant pleaded guilty to driving a dangerously defective vehicle, failing to stop, failing to remain at the scene, failing to report the incident to Gardaí and driving without insurance or a licence. The court imposed six years' detention, with the final two years suspended, and a 20‑year driving ban.
During a Court of Appeal application, a juror who had participated in the conviction of a man for raping his niece alleged that fellow jurors bullied each other and did not grasp basic criminal trial principles. The juror had contacted the convicted man's lawyers to complain about the behaviour of other jurors. The Court of Appeal granted the man more time to lodge his appeal and will later hear arguments on whether these revelations could lead to the conviction being overturned. The man was convicted in January 2020 by a unanimous jury verdict of raping his 16‑year‑old niece in 1978 and was sentenced by Mr Justice Paul Coffey to four years and six months. Mr Kenneth Fogarty SC, representing the appellant, argued that the jury had begun deliberations before all evidence was heard and that the jury was confused about the basic principles of a criminal trial.
In 2019 a 16‑year‑old pleaded guilty to two counts of defilement of a child under 15 after filming a 12‑year‑old girl performing oral sex on him while friends photographed the act. He threatened to send the footage to the victim's sport club if she refused to perform oral sex on one of his friends. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment by Mr Justice Michael White, who described the offence as cruel and warned that the defendant had downplayed it to probation officers. The appellant appealed, arguing that his young age and lack of prior convictions should mitigate the sentence. The Court of Appeal, hearing Mr Bowman SC, noted the offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment but reserved judgment. The case details the victim's distress and the defendant's threats to expose the footage. The appeal remains unresolved.
During a Court of Appeal hearing, Ms Pauline Walley SC expressed grave concerns about the six‑day cross‑examination of a 12‑year‑old boy who had been repeatedly raped by his father. She noted that the child became exhausted, agitated and at times zoned out, and that the defence counsel spent two hours reviewing photo albums and a map with the boy, raising questions that were not substantive. Ms Walley argued that such prolonged questioning was unfair to a child, citing a psychiatric report that the boy had communication difficulties. The trial judge, Mr Justice Robert Eagar, had allowed the defence to take its time, while the Court of Appeal President, Mr Justice George Birmingham, emphasised that questioning a child requires adaptation. The case involved special measures under EU directives, with the boy giving evidence via video‑link and an intermediary assisting him.
The Court of Appeal has criticised the six-day cross-examination of a 12-year-old boy in an appeal against his father's 2016 conviction. The father, a 70-year-old UK national, was convicted of nine counts of raping his son from age six and one count of child cruelty for locking the boy in a box. He received a 15-year sentence, with the final year suspended, and a four-year supervision order. His partner, also from the UK, was convicted of child cruelty but acquitted of sexual assault allegations. The appeal, presided over by Mr Justice George Birmingham, is ongoing. Counsel for the appellant argued that evidence of a video showing consensual sexual acts was prejudicial and irrelevant, while the DPP contended it was probative. The court also addressed the admissibility of the father's previous theft convictions. The boy, who was removed from the family home in 2011, provided a victim impact statement expressing severe trauma. The matter was adjourned and continues tomorrow.
A 38‑year‑old Pakistani man, father of three, was convicted of raping a woman in the back of his car on a beach date. He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, with the final 18 months suspended, after a jury found him guilty of rape but not of sexual assault. He appealed, arguing that the trial judge had allowed a friend of the complainant and a Garda to give evidence of what the complainant had told them the night after the rape, claiming this was hearsay. The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal. The judge noted that the two accounts differed only in detail, not in substance, and that the evidence was sufficient for a guilty verdict. The appeal was rejected, leaving the original conviction and sentence in place. The case was heard in the Central Criminal Court in 2019, with the appeal decided in December 2020. The unnamed 38-year-old pleaded not guilty.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a sentence appeal by Aaron Wilson, who was convicted of assault causing serious harm to Aaron Kiely in Dublin City on January 19, 2014. Wilson, a personal trainer, pleaded guilty to the charge after initially absconding from a scheduled trial. He was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison by Judge Martin Nolan at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. Wilson appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking a reduction of six months and one day to avoid classification as a long-term prisoner. His counsel argued the sentence was at the top of the scale and that the attack was not premeditated. The prosecution, represented by Tony McGillacuddy BL, urged the court to dismiss the appeal, noting the severity of the injuries. The victim, Mr. Kiely, suffered skull fractures, a brain clot, and hearing loss, leaving him requiring 24-hour care. Justice Patrick McCarthy, sitting with Justices Birmingham and Kennedy, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the classification of prisoners is a matter for prison authorities, not the judiciary. It found that the sentencing judge was correct to place the case near the top of the available range, given the victim's severe, life-altering injuries and the fact that Wilson's fitness exacerbated the harm. The court noted that a generous reduction had already been applied for mitigating factors and confirmed the original eight-and-a-half-year sentence.
In a serious assault case, the Court of Appeal ruled that a judge erred by excluding a medical certificate from a non‑examining doctor. The case involved a pub incident where a man was assaulted with a bar stool, leading to two charges of assault causing harm and assault causing serious harm. A consultant in emergency medicine had issued a certificate stating the victim suffered facial fractures and was transferred to a specialist setting; this certificate was not challenged. A second consultant, who had not examined the victim but based his opinion on others' notes, issued a certificate alleging likely permanent long‑term damage. The accused's counsel sought to exclude this certificate as hearsay, arguing it was speculative. The trial judge agreed, preventing the jury from considering serious harm and resulting in a conviction on the lesser charge.
The Court of Appeal heard that Ireland lacks a register of professionals qualified to assist vulnerable witnesses, such as children and people with intellectual disabilities, in court. The Director of Public Prosecutions had to travel to Northern Ireland to find a registered intermediary for a teenage girl who was raped and sexually assaulted by her mother's partner. A barrister for the Law Reform Commission argued that Ireland should have a register similar to Britain's, which includes speech therapists, clinical psychologists, social workers and occupational therapists trained for court work. The DPP used an external intermediary, and the court noted that legislation requiring intermediaries was introduced in 1992 but no register exists. The case involved a girl aged 11 and 12 who was raped between April 2015 and September 2016. She denied that her mother prompted her allegations. The jury found the defendant guilty on all eight counts, and a 13‑year prison sentence was imposed.
The State appealed the court‑directed acquittal of two individuals charged with falsely imprisoning a teenager five years earlier. The first accused, a teenage boy at the time, faced two counts; the second, a woman in her 60s, faced one count. The alleged victim did not testify, but the trial judge admitted his statements after the State applied to have him treated as a hostile witness. At the end of the prosecution case, the defence requested the jury to find the accused not guilty. The judge, citing the victim's failure to answer questions, directed the jury to acquit both. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed, arguing that Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act allowed the jury to assess the reliability of the admitted statements. Counsel for the young man and the woman argued that a retrial would be oppressive and that the accused denied wrongdoing. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal for further consideration. The unnamed accused was acquitted.
An unnamed 67-year-old man, described as having community standing, appealed his conviction for repeatedly raping his friend's daughter when she was aged 12 to 14. The Court of Appeal heard arguments regarding the trial judge's decision to allow the jury to bring majority verdicts after they indicated they had not yet adjudicated on some of the 32 counts. The appellant was found guilty of six counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault, three counts of oral rape, and one count of attempted oral rape, while acquitted of 16 other charges. Ms Justice Kennedy originally sentenced him to nine years, suspending the final 12 months on conditions, noting the deep impact on the victim and the breach of trust. The appellant's counsel argued the jury was denied adequate time for debate on the remaining counts. The prosecution countered that the jury's statement meant they had not reached a final conclusion. The three-judge panel, presided over by Mr Justice George Birmingham, reserved judgment. The matter was adjourned pending the court's decision.
Aaron Wilson, aged 31, attacked Aaron Kiely, aged 33, three times after seeing Kiely and his girlfriend interfere with Wilson's partner's car in Dublin. Wilson pursued the pair, punching, kicking, stamping on Kiely and beating him with a chair. Kiely was found on Patrick Street, breathing poorly and bleeding from his mouth. He was taken to hospital, where he suffered severe injuries: deafness in one ear, loss of hearing in the other, fractures to both sides of his skull, a brain blood clot, and now requires 24‑hour care. Wilson pleaded guilty to assault causing serious harm and was sentenced to eight and a half years. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking a reduction of six months and one day to avoid being classed as a long‑term prisoner. The appeal was heard by Justice George Birmingham, with counsel arguing the sentence was not excessive, and a decision is pending.
The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in an appeal against the murder conviction of Regina Keogh, with the matter adjourned. Keogh, 42, was convicted by the Special Criminal Court in 2018 of murdering Gareth Hutch and sentenced to life in prison. Her brother, Jonathan Keogh, 34, and Thomas Fox, 32, were also convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the same offense. All three defendants had denied the charges. During the appeal, defense counsel Patrick Gageby SC argued that the trial court made a significant error of law by finding that Jonathan Keogh's DNA on latex gloves corroborated the prosecution witness Mary McDonnell's evidence, despite an innocent explanation for the DNA presence. The DPP, represented by Fiona Murphy SC, responded that even if the court accepted an error occurred, it did not constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the DPP requested the court to invoke the proviso to dismiss the appeal. The defense rejected this, characterizing the alleged error as a fundamental irregularity central to the case. The bench, presided over by Justice George Birmingham with Justices Patrick McCarthy and Isobel Kennedy, has reserved its decision.
In December 2020 the Court of Appeal increased the sentence of Mark O'Dwyer, a 46‑year‑old former inmate, for his role in a large‑scale drug distribution hub that involved €4.17 million worth of heroin and cannabis. O'Dwyer had pleaded guilty in July 2017 to possession of drugs for sale or supply at a Ballyfermot Drive address and to three counts of possessing stun guns. He had previously served 41 convictions and was released from prison before the appeal. The Court of Appeal, after agreeing with the DPP that his original five‑year sentence was unduly lenient, raised it to nine years, citing the exceptional circumstance that he had already been released and had resumed normal family life and employment. The decision was made by Justices Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, John Edwards and Patrick McCarthy, who noted that a harsher sentence would have been inappropriate given his circumstances. The judgment was delivered on 10 December 2020.
In December 2020 the Court of Appeal reserved judgment on the appeal of Sharif Kelly and Edward McGrath, who were convicted of murdering Peter Butterly in 2013. The men had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Special Criminal Court. Their conviction relied heavily on testimony from former co‑accused David Cullen, who had pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a pistol and was later turned into a State witness. Cullen's evidence, which alleged a planning meeting and the men's presence, was contested by the defence as unreliable and tainted. The appeal argued that Cullen's testimony was not credible and that the men's state of mind at the time of the murder was not established. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice George Birmingham, has not yet ruled on the appeal.
In a murder conviction appeal, the DPP's counsel, Paul O'Higgins SC, acknowledged that David Cullen, a former murder suspect who became a State witness, was a 'tarnished' witness. Cullen had previously pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a semi‑automatic pistol and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, half suspended, for that offence. He testified for four and a half days in the Special Criminal Court trial of Sharif Kelly and Edward McGrath, who were convicted of murdering Peter Butterly in 2013. The defence argued that Cullen's evidence was tainted and should have been excluded, citing his prior perjury conviction. O'Higgins countered that no rule bars a person convicted of perjury from giving evidence, and that the trial court could rely on Cullen's testimony only if corroborated by other evidence. The appeal remains before the Court of Appeal.
In a 2020 appeal, a man convicted of sexually assaulting his 10‑year‑old goddaughter in 2016 had his conviction overturned. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had failed to mention the cross‑examination of the complainant when reading her testimony to the jury, creating an imbalanced charge. The judge had read the entire transcript of the girl's interview but did not remind the jury that the direct evidence was not the whole evidence. The appellate court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, remanding the man on bail. The original trial had sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment, with the final three years suspended, after a majority verdict in the Circuit Criminal Court. The case involved allegations that the man entered the girl's bedroom and assaulted her while she was asleep, an act that profoundly affected her emotional well-being.
The appeal of Edward McGrath and Sharif Kelly, who were convicted of the murder of Peter Butterly in 2013, is ongoing before the Court of Appeal. McGrath's barrister, Paul Greene SC, argued that while McGrath was 'caught red-handed' in the criminal enterprise, there was a lack of evidence regarding his state of mind at the time of the shooting. The appeal hinges on the reliability of David Cullen's testimony, who was originally charged with the murder but later pleaded guilty to the unlawful possession of a semi-automatic pistol at the Huntsman Inn on the day of the shooting. Cullen's evidence was central to the convictions of McGrath, Kelly, and others. The appeal is examining whether the trial judges erred in accepting Cullen's testimony, which was the basis of the convictions. The matter was adjourned for further submissions from the DPP, with Paul O'Higgins SC set to continue his arguments tomorrow. Dean Evans, who pleaded guilty to the murder, was not present for the trial but was extradited back to Ireland. The case remains in the appeal stage, with no finalised conclusions yet.
In a 2020 Court of Appeal decision, the appeal of Cornelius Price, a 38‑year‑old former gang leader from Drogheda, was dismissed. Price had been released from Wheatfield Prison on 18 May 2019 after serving three‑quarters of a three‑year sentence, with a quarter remission calculated by days. He argued that a month‑based calculation would have released him 24 hours earlier, on 17 May 2019. The court upheld the High Court's earlier ruling that the IPS's day‑based method is logical, consistent and fair, and that a month‑based approach would create ambiguity and unfairness. Justice Maire Whelan, joined by Justices George Birmingham and Isobel Kennedy, found Price's detention for the disputed 24‑hour period lawful and dismissed the appeal. Price had been convicted in 2017 for recklessly endangering a Garda during a high‑speed incident in 2014.
Two men, Edward McGrath and Sharif Kelly, are appealing their convictions for the murder of Peter Butterly, a dissident republican, in a five‑day hearing before the Court of Appeal. The appeal focuses on the reliability of evidence given by former murder suspect David Cullen, who became a State witness. Cullen's testimony, which lasted four and a half days, is alleged by the defence to be tainted and untrustworthy. The defence argues that Cullen's statements were inconsistent, often vague, and that he used evasive language such as "don't know" and "possibly" to undermine his credibility. The appeal contends that the trial judges erred by accepting Cullen's evidence and not adequately addressing his credibility. The hearing will continue the following day before a three‑judge panel of the Court of Appeal.
Conor Metcalfe, a 30‑year‑old Dublin resident, was convicted by the Special Criminal Court for membership of the Irish Republican Army on 24 November 2015. The conviction was based on belief evidence supplied by Detective Chief Superintendent Anthony Howard, who asserted that Metcalfe was an IRA member after reviewing material and that Metcalfe's refusal to answer questions during a Gardaí interview under Section 2 of the Offences Against the State Act allowed the court to infer membership. Justice Tony Hunt judged that the combined weight of evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Metcalfe received a four‑year‑six‑month prison sentence. He has now appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing double counting of evidence, lack of materiality of the questions, and privilege claims that limited cross‑examination. The Director of Public Prosecutions defended the conviction as safe and proper, and the Court of Appeal has reserved judgment.
Joseph McGrane, a fruit and veg salesman aged 60, was convicted of 11 indecent assault and seven sexual assault offences committed between 1985 and 1993. The victims, all of whom worked for him at different times, included three boys aged 13 to 18 and a 22‑year‑old woman. McGrane denied the charges but was found guilty by a jury in March 2019. The trial judge, Elma Sheahan, reduced the headline sentence from 18 to 13 years, suspended the final year, and considered that McGrane had not reoffended for 26 years. The Court of Appeal upheld the 12‑year sentence, noting that the trial judge had been misled about the maximum sentence for sexual assault under the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1990. McGrane's appeal against the severity of the sentence was dismissed. The case was heard by Justices Isobel Kennedy, George Birmingham and Patrick McCarthy. The final sentence remained 13 years with the last year suspended.
Niall Byrne, 37, of Crumlin Road Flats, withdrew his appeal against a 10‑year sentence for conspiracy to rob Securicor of €2.08 million and for being the 'inside man' in a €2 million cash‑in‑transit robbery that involved the tiger kidnapping of Paul Richardson's family. The robbery took place on 14 March 2005, when the gang forced Richardson to deliver the cash to a carpark after holding his wife and teenage sons at gunpoint in the Dublin Mountains. Byrne had previously pleaded not guilty to the kidnapping and robbery charges. The Court of Appeal had upheld the convictions earlier in the year, noting that Byrne's role was central to the operation. After the judge warned that the court could increase or decrease the sentence, Byrne's counsel, Feargal Kavanagh SC, withdrew the appeal, accepting the court's decision. The case had spanned five trials and two appeals over 11 years.
A 46‑year‑old man, previously acquitted of raping and sexually assaulting his niece, will face a retrial on the same charges after the Court of Appeal quashed his acquittal. The original trial, held in Cork, saw the judge direct a jury to acquit after hearing prosecution evidence and noting that the prosecution had failed to call two witnesses who had given statements to the gardai. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered earlier this month, found that the trial judge had erred in halting the trial and directing the jury to acquit. The appeal judge highlighted that the defence's application for an acquittal was based on the prosecution's failure to call the complainant's grandmother and father, who had given statements to the gardai. He described the application as surprising and noted that the defence or the judge could have called those witnesses if they wished.
Ian O'Sullivan, aged 32, appealed against a 12‑year prison sentence for a violent robbery of Thomas Lonergan in Clonmel on 26 February 2017. The Court of Appeal, led by Justice John Edwards, found the headline sentence excessive, noting a lack of guidance for judges on robbery. O'Sullivan's offence was deemed a serious instance of robbery with significant culpability but no weapon was used and the attack was spontaneous. The court re‑sentenced him to six years' imprisonment, suspending the final year on conditions, and upheld a €2,000 compensation order. Lonergan suffered severe physical and psychological harm, including blurred vision and diabetic complications, and his family relocated due to fear of further attacks. The appeal focused solely on the sentence, not on the facts of the robbery. The unnamed 32-year-old pleaded guilty.
Ibrahim Gharib, 41, an Egyptian national, appealed his rape conviction after a trial in which he was found guilty of raping a 27‑year‑old foreign student at her home following a sexual assault on a bus. The appeal argued that a doctor's evidence about "foreign debris" on the victim's body was unreliable and that the debris had not been preserved for forensic analysis. Gharib claimed the intercourse was consensual and occurred while standing over a couch in the living room. The prosecution maintained that the victim's testimony, eyewitness accounts, and text messages supported the claim that Gharib followed her home, did not leave her alone, and raped her. The trial judge sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment, a verdict upheld by the jury. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, but the judge's decision was not yet finalized.
The Court of Appeal has upheld a finding that the sentence imposed on Muiris Flynn, a 31-year-old appellant, was unduly lenient for dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm, drink driving, and driving without insurance at Doon near Boyle on September 24, 2017. Flynn pleaded guilty to all charges. While the three-judge panel nominated a headline sentence of six years, they decided not to increase the custodial element because Flynn had already been released from prison and secured new employment. Instead, the court imposed a €20,000 fine, describing it as a substantial part of his punishment. The unserved balance of the three-year custodial sentence was suspended. The court re-imposed the original driving disqualifications, acknowledging their adverse impact on his social and working life but deeming them an appropriate response to the devastating harm caused to the victims. Flynn was given until December 31, 2020, to pay the fine in a single instalment, with permission to pay through the Roscommon Town court office. The matter was not adjourned; the re-sentencing and fine payment deadline were finalized.
A woman who was raped as a child in County Wicklow has won an 18‑month legal battle to have her rapist named. The man, convicted of four rapes and two indecent assaults between 1987 and 1989, was sentenced to seven years in prison in May 2019. A gagging order issued by Judge Michael White in that sentencing hearing prevented the publication of his name and any identifying details of the victim. The victim, who was unaware of her right to waive anonymity at the time, later informed Gardaí that she wished to have the rapist named. The DPP applied to lift the ban, but Judge White refused, citing an expired mandate. The Court of Appeal, led by President Justice George Birmingham, ruled the order superfluous and removed the restriction, allowing the rapist's name to be published in accordance with the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 and the Children Act.
In November 2020, a 36‑year‑old serial sex attacker appealed his convictions, claiming unlawful detention after a knife‑wielding assault. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice George Birmingham, found the evidence overwhelming but left the appeal undecided. The defendant had been convicted of nine offences across three attacks in Clondalkin between 2011 and 2016, including false imprisonment, sexual assault, and assault causing harm. He was sentenced to 18 years and six months' imprisonment, described by Judge Pauline Codd as "brutal and primal" and "premeditated," with aggravating factors such as a hunting knife, duct tape, and cable ties. Post‑release, he faces a nine‑year supervision period, curfew, residence notification, and travel log. The appeal centred on alleged procedural breaches during his arrest, specifically the lack of a custody record book and an unlawful extension of detention, which the Director of Public Prosecutions deemed "unfortunate" but not unlawful. Mr Justice Birmingham reserved judgement.
In November 2020 the Court of Appeal upheld a six‑and‑a‑half‑year sentence for Mark Harte, 26, who set fire to a Flyefit gym in Coolock in July 2016. Harte admitted the arson was committed for a criminal gang after a drug debt from cocaine use. He appealed the severity of the sentence, arguing he had pleaded guilty, was at low risk of re‑offending and had shown positive rehabilitation progress. The appeal judge, citing the planned nature of the offence and the estimated damage of well over €1 million, found no error in the trial judge's discretion. The original headline sentence of 11 years was reduced to nine years, with the final two and a half years suspended on the condition of addiction counselling. The appeal court did not alter the sentence, confirming the six‑and‑a‑half‑year custodial term as imposed.
A 46‑year‑old man was convicted of 15 counts of sexually assaulting his niece between 1991 and 1994 and four counts of indecent assault between 1988 and 1991. The jury could not agree on verdicts for 20 counts of assault against the niece's sister. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, with Judge Martin Nolan describing the abuse as "in the most grievous way" and estimating over 100 occasions of abuse. The appellant appealed on seven grounds, including alleged collusion between the sisters' statements and the trial judge's failure to warn the jury. The three‑judge Court of Appeal rejected all grounds, upholding the jury verdicts and the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction remains in force.
A retired doctor, aged 86, lost an appeal against a conviction for abusing seven boys over a 21‑year period up to 1992. He had pleaded not guilty to 12 charges of indecent assault and one charge of sexual assault committed during medical examinations beginning in 1971. The Court of Appeal rejected 17 grounds of appeal, including claims that the trial was unfair because of the doctor's age and that the judge's use of the word "compelling" was improper. The judge had told the jury that if the complainants had made their statements independently, the number of complaints would be compelling. The court found no substance to these complaints. The doctor was sentenced to four years in prison, with 18 months on all other counts, all sentences running concurrently. The appeal was dismissed by Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, Mr Justice John Edwards and Ms Justice Una Ní Raifeartaigh.
In November 2020 the Court of Appeal ruled that a 39‑year‑old English businessman who raped and sexually assaulted two young sisters would not be required to attend the "Better Lives" sex‑offender treatment programme to obtain a suspended portion of his sentence. The man, who denied the offences, had been convicted in 2019 on three counts of rape and eight counts of sexual assault against 10‑ and 12‑year‑old girls. He received a 14‑year jail term with two years suspended, conditional on programme participation. The Court found that the condition could not be imposed before the suspended period became effective, and therefore removed the programme requirement. The suspended two years will be released only if he remains peaceful for two years, stays under Probation Service supervision for the same period, complies with any programme attendance, and has no contact with the victims in perpetuity.
In November 2020 the Court of Appeal ruled that a trial judge had erred by halting a rape trial and directing a jury to acquit an uncle accused of raping and sexually assaulting his niece. The appeal court found the judge's decision was wrong and that the trial should have continued. The uncle had been charged under the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1990 and Section 2 of the Act for two counts of sexual assault, with alleged incidents occurring between 2001 and 2006. The niece alleged three separate assaults at her grandmother's house, describing the uncle's actions and her attempts to stop him. The prosecution had not called two witnesses – the niece's grandmother and father – who had given statements to gardai. The Court of Appeal, led by Mr Justice George Birmingham, said the defence's argument for acquittal was surprising and that the prosecution's failure to call those witnesses was not a valid reason to halt the trial.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a damages claim brought by Vincent Byrne and Vincent Byrne Junior against the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). The applicants alleged that NAMA failed to afford them fair procedures and provide clear reasons during the decision-making process for acquiring over €6.2m in loans from AIB. These loans, secured by a fuel station on Parnell Road, Dublin 12, and apartments on Blackhorse Avenue, Dublin, were transferred to NAMA in 2010 after the proposed development failed and the loans went into difficulty. Receivers were subsequently appointed over the properties. In 2016, the Byrnes initiated High Court proceedings, claiming breaches of their constitutional right to fair procedures and rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. They also alleged breaches of the EU Charter and State aid regulations. In 2018, Mr Justice Michael MacGrath struck out the claims regarding the EU Charter and State aid but allowed the fair procedures and ECHR claims to proceed. NAMA appealed this ruling, arguing all proceedings should be dismissed, while the Byrnes cross-appealed to reinstate their full claim. A three-judge panel comprising Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan, and Mr Justice Donald Binchy unanimously ruled in NAMA's favour. The Court of Appeal dismissed the entirety of the Byrnes' claims and their cross-appeal. Mr Justice Noonan stated the claim was statute barred, as it was initiated outside the applicable limitation period of more than six years, rendering it bound to fail.
In a 2020 Court of Appeal decision, the court held that the detention of a Romanian man arrested in Dublin in December 2013 for suspected drink driving was not unlawful, even though the Gardaí failed to inform him that an interpreter was not required and did not record this decision in the custody record. The man was stopped after the officer observed him driving with a traffic cone under his bumper, smelled alcohol on his breath, and noted slurred speech. He claimed he had only had a few drinks at a Christmas party and provided two breath samples at the station. The District Court judge found breaches of the interpretation regulations but the Court of Appeal ruled these breaches did not make the detention unlawful.
In a 2020 Court of Appeal hearing, Brendan Grehan SC argued that a person suspected of a serious offence should be allowed to respond to allegations before being formally charged. He cited a case where a man was charged with reckless endangerment without being arrested or interviewed, leading his lawyers to claim he had no chance to present his side before trial. The trial judge acquitted him on that charge, stating the accused had been denied an opportunity to give a memo of interview to the jury and was forced into giving evidence. Grehan stressed that the right not to testify in defence requires an opportunity to respond to allegations prior to charge. James Dwyer SC, representing the Director of Public Prosecutions, countered that police discretion allows charging without prior interview. The Court of Appeal will issue a judgment later.
In 2017 a 53‑year‑old farm labourer was sentenced to 20 years for raping six children and molesting a seventh over a 17‑year period. The victims, aged between seven and ten when the abuse began, described weekly assaults in farm sheds, outhouses and fields. The man, who started offending at 15, pleaded guilty to 52 charges including oral and anal rape. In November 2020 the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, rejecting arguments for a partially suspended sentence and citing the lack of remorse or evidence of rehabilitation. The court noted the severity of the offences, the absence of a "lapse from grace", and the man's adult status at the time of most abuses. The 20‑year sentence, with five years of post‑release supervision, was upheld.
A teenager has appealed to the Court of Appeal against his four-year effective sentence for dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm. The accused, who was 17 at the time of the incident in March 2019, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, driving a dangerously defective vehicle, failing to stop, failing to keep his vehicle at the scene, failing to report the incident to gardai, and driving without insurance or a licence. He was sentenced last year to six years' detention, with the final two years suspended, and received a 20-year driving disqualification. The court heard that the toddler victim suffered a life-long brain injury and multiple fractures. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, his youth, and the potential for rehabilitation, while the State maintained the sentence was appropriate. The matter was adjourned as the Court of Appeal reserved its judgment.
The Court of Appeal has added a €20,000 fine to the sentence of Muiris Flynn, a 31-year-old appellant, following a successful DPP appeal against the undue leniency of his original sentence. Flynn pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm, drink driving, and driving without insurance at Doon near Boyle on September 24th, 2017. The original sentence, imposed by Judge Francis Comerford, was four years in prison for dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm, with the final two and a half years suspended, alongside concurrent disqualifications for the other charges. The three-judge appellate court, presided over by Justice John Edwards, found the original sentence unduly lenient and nominated a headline sentence of six years. However, considering Flynn's release from prison, his finding of new employment, and the interests of justice in promoting reform, the court decided not to increase the custodial element. Instead, they suspended the unserved balance of the newly imposed three-year term and imposed the substantial €20,000 fine. The court re-imposed the same driving disqualifications as the circuit court, acknowledging the adverse impact on Flynn's social and working life but deeming it an appropriate response to the devastating harm caused to the victims.
The Court of Appeal rejected an application by several media outlets to name a woman who smothered her three‑year‑old child to death with a pillow. The woman had been found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity in a short trial in October last year. Two High Court judges had ordered that the deceased child should not be identified, and the Court of Appeal upheld that order. Paul Murray SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, had argued that Section 252 of the Children Act 2001 makes it an offence to publish anything that could identify a child who is an alleged victim of an offence, including a deceased child. The media argued that the Act does not cover a deceased child and that the order protected the mother rather than the child. Mr Justice George Birmingham, President of the three‑judge Court of Appeal, found that the judges had properly applied the law.
A 31-year-old man from Geevagh, County Sligo has had his sentence referred for review by the Court of Appeal after being convicted of dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm, drink driving and driving without insurance. The offences arose from a collision on a country road near Boyle, County Roscommon, on 24 September 2017, when his vehicle struck two cyclists. One victim sustained spinal fractures and hip dislocation, requiring prolonged recovery and leaving her unable to return to her former employment as a teacher. The other cyclist suffered significant pelvic fractures and required intensive care treatment. At sentencing in Roscommon Circuit Court, the defendant received four years imprisonment with the final two and a half years suspended, along with an eight-year driving disqualification. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence as unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal found the original sentence was indeed unduly lenient and determined that re-sentencing was necessary. The court indicated it would consider all available options, including the possibility of imposing a substantial fine. Judgement is expected by month's end.
The Court of Appeal adjourned a murder‑conviction appeal until 30 October to allow the appellant, Warren Nolan, to attend in person rather than remotely because of his cognitive difficulties. Nolan, 23, had been convicted of shooting Alan O'Neill, 35, dead in the victim's front garden on 27 May 2015. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. His barrister requested the adjournment after it was discovered that Nolan had not been physically brought from prison to the Criminal Courts of Justice but had been connected remotely. The court noted that it had ordered Nolan's physical appearance despite Covid‑19 restrictions, citing the exceptional circumstances. Justice Birmingham, presiding, directed that Nolan be brought to court to facilitate access to his lawyers and postponed the hearing to the end of the month, with the possibility of further delay into the next year.
A man convicted of rape and sexual assault has had his sentence reduced by eighteen months following a Court of Appeal finding that the trial judge may have imposed a longer sentence than warranted due to comments about remission. The Court of Appeal quashed the twelve-year sentence imposed on Richard Moloney and re-sentenced him to ten-and-a-half years imprisonment. The appeal court found that remarks by the sentencing judge at Dublin's Central Criminal Court in November 2019 suggested he was taking potential early release into account when determining the headline sentence, which departed from standard sentencing practice. Moloney was convicted in July 2019 of rape, oral rape, and sexual assault against his foster daughter in July 2016. He was acquitted of a further charge of anal rape. The court rejected Moloney's appeal against conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's jury instructions.
Patrick O'Driscoll, now aged 23, of Rosewood Drive, Charleville, Co Cork, has been re-sentenced by the Court of Appeal following an appeal against his seven-year prison sentence for the rape of a woman in Co Cork on May 10, 2016. O'Driscoll was 18 at the time of the offence. The appeal was heard by Mr Justice John Edwards, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, and Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal regarding O'Driscoll's conviction, stating that the trial judge did not err in dealing with conflicting accounts of the night of the incident or in directing that the case be taken away from the jury. The appeal also sought to have a portion of the sentence suspended, but this was rejected due to the serious nature of the case. The Court of Appeal found that there was no error in the headline sentence of ten years and that a mitigated sentence of seven years could be considered 'generous'. However, the Court of Appeal addressed the lack of post-release supervision, noting a strong need for such supervision in the circumstances of the case. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the court was quashed. O'Driscoll was re-sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with a post-release supervision order for a period of five years.
Patrick Quirke, aged 51, awaits the Court of Appeal's decision on his appeal against a murder conviction for the killing of Bobby "Mr Moonlight" Ryan, aged 52, in 2011. The appeal, presented over four days, lists about 50 grounds, including claims of unfair trial due to prejudicial evidence, flawed search warrant, and improper jury admission of seized material. Quirke's counsel argues the warrant omitted computer references, yet a computer was seized, containing a disputed audio recording of Mary Lowry and Flor Cantillon. They contend the recording was inadmissible and prejudicial. The prosecution maintains the warrant was lawful, the recording admissible, and the evidence of a motor‑vehicle impact credible. The Court of Appeal will consider these arguments before issuing a ruling.