The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gavin Ryan’s appeal against convictions arising from a 2019 shooting in Waterford, leaving his convictions and sentences undisturbed.
Ryan was found guilty by a jury in Waterford Circuit Criminal Court in July 2021 of possessing a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life, assault causing serious harm, and possessing a controlled drug for sale or supply. In November 2021, he received concurrent sentences of 13 and a half years, with the final two years suspended on conditions, for the firearm and assault counts; nine years for the ammunition count; and two and a half years for the drug count. The sentences were backdated to 24 December 2019.
The prosecution case was that Ryan shot Clifford Power in the chest at close range outside a convenience store beside the Mount Suir apartment complex on 23 December 2019. The Court of Appeal’s account said CCTV showed a man buying orange juice and yoghurt shortly before the shooting. Gardaí later found matching items in Ryan’s apartment, and forensic evidence linked them to him. A recovered hoodie bore Ryan’s DNA and firearms residue matching that found on spent shells from the scene. Gardaí also recovered ammunition and amphetamine during a warranted search of the apartment.
Ryan challenged the admission of CCTV footage and a Garda commentary on it, the search evidence, his arrest and detention, the chain of custody for a live round of ammunition, and the trial judge’s treatment of defence evidence. The appeal court said CCTV from public spaces was admissible in the circumstances and upheld the use of a witness’s narrative to help the jury interpret the footage. The jury, the court said, remained responsible for deciding what the footage showed.
The search challenge concerned earlier entries into the apartment, before a warrant was obtained. Ryan argued that information gathered during those entries was unconstitutional and tainted the warrant. The prosecution said the entries were made to protect life and limb and, alternatively, that the information could support a valid warrant even if a rights breach had occurred. The appeal court held that the warrant’s validity did not depend on whether the information had been obtained in breach of a constitutional right. It upheld the trial judge’s decision not to determine whether the initial entries were unlawful; it did not make a finding on that question.
The court also upheld the findings that Ryan’s arrest and detention were lawful. It said any dispute about the ammunition exhibit’s custody was for the jury to weigh as a matter of fact, rather than a reason for the trial judge to exclude it. The jury had been referred to evidence that two witnesses familiar with Ryan did not recognise him in the footage.
The court found no ground of appeal succeeded and dismissed the appeal against conviction.