The Court of Criminal Appeal refused John Paul Buck leave to appeal his convictions for murder and arson, while finding the prosecution had failed to prove that a search warrant for his home was properly executed.
The judgment, delivered by McKechnie J. on 27 November 2014, said Buck had been convicted by majority verdict after a 15-day trial. He received the mandatory life term for the murder of Fergus Roche and five years for arson at Mr Roche’s home, 21 Haywood Close, Clonmel, on 1 October 2005.
Buck challenged the admission of an alleged confession to Detective Garda Bergin, items seized from his home, the trial judge’s direction on corroboration and the refusal to discharge the jury after publicity about Buck’s brother. The appeal court rejected all four grounds.
On the alleged confession, the court upheld the trial judge’s finding that Buck had initiated a late-night meeting with the detective and that the detective had not anticipated a confession. It accepted the detective’s evidence that he tried to caution Buck after the initial admission. The judges said the circumstances did not establish a breach of the Judges’ Rules and found no basis to exclude the confession on fairness grounds.
The search issue concerned clothing fragments and other items recovered from a stove in Buck’s back garden on 2 October 2005. The court said the warrant’s endorsement was hearsay and the evidence did not establish that the officer named in it had executed it. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove due execution and that the officer who collected the evidence was trespassing in the home.
However, the appeal court said the trial judge had treated the breach as an illegality and admitted the evidence using his discretion. It added that, even if the evidence should instead have been treated as obtained in breach of constitutional rights, it was peripheral and had not been identified as corroboration. The court concluded that it did not affect the safety of the verdict.
The court also found the jury had received an adequate warning to consider the absence of corroboration for the confession. After reports about an attempted prison escape by Buck’s brother appeared while the jury deliberated, the trial judge asked jurors generally whether they had encountered coverage that might make their task more difficult. Each said no. The appeal court held that this inquiry was satisfactory and the trial was not tainted.
The court’s order was to refuse leave to appeal. It did not overturn either conviction or sentence.