Eric Harcourt challenged convictions over identification and forensic evidence

This report is a localnews.ie summary based on public court reporting and records; sources are listed below.

The Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on 7 March 2017 concerning Eric Harcourt’s appeal against his convictions for endangerment and unlawful use of a mechanically propelled vehicle. Mr. Justice Mahon delivered the judgment.

A jury at the Circuit Criminal Court in Dublin unanimously found him guilty of both charges on 2 February 2016.

On 5 February 2016, he was sentenced for endangerment to four years’ imprisonment with the final 18 months suspended on conditions. The unlawful-use count was taken into consideration.

The incident occurred in Darndale, Dublin, early on 23 September 2014. A garda approached a parked car whose driver accelerated, brushed against him and sped away. The garda was uninjured. The only evidence against Harcourt was identification evidence from three gardaí.

Harcourt challenged the trial judge’s directions that three identification witnesses strengthened the case, alongside her refusal to warn that multiple witnesses could make mistaken identifications. His grounds also concerned her treatment of DNA and her summary of evidence about an official garda notebook.

The car’s fingerprint examination emerged during cross-examination, having not been disclosed before trial. The examiner’s statement said no fingerprints had been obtained and DNA analysis had neither been sought nor undertaken.

The trial judge refused a one-day adjournment sought to secure the examiner’s attendance for cross-examination. Harcourt argued that this prevented the defence from questioning him about DNA collection and analysis and exploring why testing had not been conducted when the case rested entirely on identification.

The prosecution argued that the examiner’s absence caused no unfairness because DNA testing had not been requested or performed. It also argued that the defence knew before trial that no fingerprint or DNA evidence existed but had made no arrangements to call a DNA expert.

This report covers an earlier stage of the case. Later developments are not reported here.