The Court of Appeal has dismissed Paul McCarthy’s appeals against his convictions and sentences for offences arising from an incident at N Square Restaurant on Camden Quay, Cork, on 6 December 2014.
The jury had convicted McCarthy on three counts: producing a broken bottle to intimidate another person, threatening to kill, and criminal damage. He received six years’ imprisonment for the threat-to-kill offence, with the final 18 months suspended, and three years for producing the bottle. The sentences ran concurrently and were backdated to 16 February 2016. The criminal damage count was taken into consideration.
The appeal against conviction challenged Garda Joseph Maher’s identification evidence from restaurant CCTV and the trial judge’s directions to the jury. The defence argued that the man seen in the footage was not McCarthy and might have given Garda Maher a false name when encountered later that evening. The court noted that no identification parade had taken place.
The appeal court rejected the argument that Garda Maher’s evidence was a dock identification. It said he had identified the man in the CCTV as the person he had arrested on MacCurtain Street after speaking with him, arresting him and arranging his detention. The jury could assess whether that recognition was correct, and the defence had challenged it in cross-examination. The court found the evidence admissible and no unfairness in how it was presented.
The judges also found no error in the trial judge’s account of the identification evidence or in the way he put the defence case to the jury. They said the jury remained responsible for deciding whether the man arrested that night was the accused and whether the name and date of birth given to Garda Maher were correct. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
On sentence, McCarthy argued that the trial judge had placed the threat-to-kill offence too high on the sentencing scale and given excessive weight to aggravating factors. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It cited the use of a weapon, repeated threats, the fear caused, the presence of the victim’s wife and restaurant customers, and the racist and xenophobic language described in the judgment. It also noted the impact on the victim.
The court held that the seven-year headline sentence, reduced by one year, was appropriate and found no error of principle. It also considered the suspension of the final 18 months appropriate. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.