The Supreme Court has dismissed Brian Vickers’s appeal against the refusal of bail while he awaits trial on a charge of murdering his wife, Joan Vickers. The Court said the High Court judge was entitled to rely on hearsay evidence about an alleged threat to the couple’s children when deciding there was a real risk of further serious offending.
The appeal was heard and determined on 17 July 2009. In a judgment delivered on 27 July, Mr Justice Kearns set out the Court’s reasons for dismissing it. The decision left the High Court’s refusal of bail in place; it did not determine the murder charge.
The charge concerns the alleged killing of Joan Vickers at the family home in Dublin on 20 April 2009. At the High Court bail hearing, a friend of the deceased, Claire Graham, testified that Joan had told her that, during an argument months earlier, Mr Vickers threatened to kill her, the children and himself unless she engaged in a sexual act. The Supreme Court noted that Joan was deceased and could not give direct evidence. Mr Vickers denied making any threats and said he loved his children and would never harm them.
The High Court had refused bail because it considered there was a risk that Mr Vickers might commit serious offences involving his two youngest children. The judge had said the concerns about the seriousness of the charge and risk of flight could be addressed through bail conditions. The appeal challenged the admission and weight of Ms Graham’s hearsay evidence and argued that the judge had not given adequate regard to the presumption of innocence.
The Supreme Court held that hearsay evidence may be received in a bail application where there are sufficient grounds for not requiring the witness to give direct evidence. It said the deceased’s inability to testify was a central reason the evidence could be admitted. The Court also said the judge had to assess its weight alongside the other evidence, including the applicant’s sworn denial.
Under section 2 of the Bail Act 1997, the Court said, the judge did not have to find on the balance of probabilities that a further offence would be committed. The judge had to be satisfied that refusing bail was reasonably considered necessary to prevent serious offending, while assessing whether the risk was real and whether refusal was proportionate to the gravity of the apprehended offence. The Court said the High Court judge was entitled to give weight to Ms Graham’s evidence, together with evidence of prior family arguments and alleged admissions. It dismissed the appeal.