The Court of Appeal has dismissed Daniel McDonnell’s appeal against his murder conviction, finding that his trial was fair and the jury’s verdict safe.
The judgment, delivered on 20 June 2018, concerned the murder of 16-year-old Melanie McNamara, who was shot while travelling in a car in Tallaght on 7 February 2012. A jury convicted McDonnell after a nine-day trial in the Central Criminal Court on 24 January 2014.
The appeal raised three main issues: the admission of two letters written by McDonnell while in prison, the trial judge’s refusal to withdraw the case from the jury, and the adequacy of the judge’s direction about the absence of corroboration.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision to admit the letters. It said the trial judge had to decide whether they were written by McDonnell as the product of his own unfettered mind, rather than determine whether their contents were true. The jury was to assess their truthfulness and the explanations for them. The appeal court said the trial judge’s ruling could have given more detail, but was correct and available on the evidence and submissions.
The letters had been given to prison staff in unsealed envelopes and read under prison correspondence rules. The court held that prison authorities’ decision to pass them to gardaí was appropriate and lawful, taking account of the restrictions on prisoners’ privacy and the public interest in investigating serious crime.
The court also rejected the challenge to the refusal to withdraw the case from the jury. It said the prosecution relied principally on the correspondence and its contents, and the trial judge’s refusal was consistent with his earlier ruling admitting the letters.
On corroboration, the appeal court noted that the trial judge told jurors there was a “total absence of corroboration”. He also told them they could convict without corroboration only if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence offered as a confession was reliable. The appeal court found that direction adequate.
It dismissed all grounds of appeal. The judgment did not alter the conviction.