The Court of Criminal Appeal has allowed George Redmond to adduce bank records as new evidence in his appeal and to add a ground arguing that his convictions are unsafe. The court did not decide the appeal or whether the records undermine the convictions; it directed that counsel be heard on how the evidence should be presented.
Redmond was convicted by a majority jury of two corruption counts arising from an allegation that he received £10,000 in cash from Brendan Fassnidge in connection with the sale of a right of way at Palmerstown. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in December 2003, backdated to when he entered custody the previous month.
The appeal application concerned Bank of Ireland records relating to Fassnidge, along with statements from a garda sergeant and two bank employees. Redmond’s lawyers submitted that Fassnidge had repeatedly testified that he obtained the cash from the bank, and that the records could further undermine his credibility. They argued that the records had not been obtained before trial and that the defence had been led to understand none existed.
The Director of Public Prosecutions disputed that account. Its counsel submitted that the prosecution had made full disclosure, that the defence learned during trial that some records existed, and that it chose to proceed without seeking them. The DPP also argued that the records were not new evidence.
The court found that the records qualified as new evidence. It said the parties had begun the trial on the common understanding that no records were available, and that the garda evidence denied their existence. A bank manager’s trial evidence had made only a limited reference to records, without revealing their nature or extent. The court held that the material was admissible, relevant and material to the central issue, and that the defence could not fairly be faulted for not pursuing unknown records after being given the earlier impression that none existed.
The court concluded that refusing the application could give rise to an injustice. It allowed the motion to adduce the evidence and granted leave to add the ground that the conviction was unsafe in light of the bank records. Whether that ground succeeds remains for the appeal hearing.