The Court of Appeal has dismissed Stephen Gibbons’s appeal against his conviction for possessing a firearm, finding that the jury’s separate verdicts on firearm and ammunition possession were not inconsistent.
Gibbons was tried at Meath Circuit Criminal Court in May 2021. He pleaded not guilty to both counts. The jury found him guilty of possessing a firearm and not guilty of possessing ammunition. His sole appeal ground was that the firearm conviction was perverse and should be quashed.
The charges arose after Gardaí encountered Gibbons twice on a laneway at Rockleigh House, County Meath, on 15 January 2020. Later that night, officers found a firearm and ammunition in a black plastic bag in undergrowth beside a ditch, about 100 metres from where they had first spoken to him. A hair recovered from lubricant on the firearm produced a DNA profile that matched a sample taken from Gibbons.
For the appeal, Gibbons argued that the verdicts were contradictory because the firearm and ammunition were found together in the same bag. He relied on evidence from prosecution and defence experts that the hair could have been transferred indirectly, and that its age and route onto the firearm could not be established. The prosecution submitted that the DNA evidence was one part of a circumstantial case, and that the jury could distinguish between the evidence relating to the firearm and the ammunition.
The Court of Appeal said an appellate court could set aside a verdict as perverse only in very exceptional circumstances. It found that the jury had evidence beyond the DNA result to consider, including Garda observations of Gibbons near the location and his explanations for being there. The trial judge had directed jurors to assess all the evidence and cautioned that the presence of DNA alone was not enough to prove guilt.
The court also noted that the hair was found adhering to lubricant on the firearm, while the ammunition was inside a glass jar in the same bag. It said the jury could regard the evidence of possession as stronger for the firearm and assess each count separately. The court found no basis to conclude that the verdict was unsupported by evidence, against all the evidence, or inconsistent under the applicable test. It dismissed the appeal; the firearm conviction therefore remains in place.