Judgment: 2016-10-13 · Court archive

Court of Appeal upholds Eamon Murphy convictions despite unlawful retention of DNA sample

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Eamon Murphy (Appellant)
What

Court of Appeal upholds Eamon Murphy convictions despite unlawful retention of DNA sample

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • outside Ballymahon
  • near Strokestown
  • Longford Circuit Criminal Court
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that the sample had been lawfully taken and analysed and that the later failure to destroy it did not retrospectively make its original taking unconstitutional. The breach was instead one of statutory legal rights.

The Court of Appeal has upheld Eamon Murphy’s convictions for aggravated burglary and unlawfully taking a vehicle following a break-in at a home outside Ballymahon, Co Longford.

Murphy was convicted by a jury at Longford Circuit Criminal Court in February 2015. The prosecution case arose from a burglary in the early hours of July 3, 2011, when homeowner Mr Higgins encountered an intruder armed with a large kitchen knife. The intruder threatened to kill him and ordered him upstairs while property and a Mercedes car were stolen.

The Mercedes was later found crashed and burned near Strokestown, Co Roscommon, with stolen property inside. Garda evidence also linked a damaged black Volvo seen near the house to earlier events in Longford town, while CCTV evidence identified Murphy as one of two men associated with that vehicle.

The appeal centred on DNA evidence. A sample was taken lawfully from Murphy on November 22, 2011 to compare with DNA obtained from blood found at the crime scene. A match was identified while the sample was still lawfully held.

However, Murphy was not charged until January 8, 2013. Under the legislation then in force, the sample and associated records should have been destroyed by November 21, 2012 unless a court authorised longer retention. No such order had been obtained.

Murphy argued that the continued retention breached his constitutional rights to bodily integrity and privacy and that the DNA evidence should have been excluded.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It held that the sample had been lawfully taken and analysed and that the later failure to destroy it did not retrospectively make its original taking unconstitutional. The breach was instead one of statutory legal rights.

That meant the trial judge retained discretion over admissibility. The appeal court found no error in allowing the DNA evidence to go before the jury and dismissed Murphy’s appeal.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review