The Court of Appeal has dismissed Frederick Thompson’s appeal against his conviction for the murder of David Douglas, rejecting challenges to Garda recognition evidence, the trial court’s assessment of circumstantial evidence and the use of CCTV footage recorded by private operators.
The 12-day trial took place before the Special Criminal Court in May and June 2018. Douglas was shot dead in his Shoestown shop on Bridgefoot Street, Dublin, on 1 July 2016. The prosecution case was that several vehicles and their occupants coordinated the murder. The trial court convicted Thompson, finding that he had played a significant part in organising it.
Thompson argued that footage from the White Swan Business Park was too poor to support Garda recognition evidence and that weaknesses in how the recognition process was recorded made it unfair. The trial court had admitted that footage, while ruling recognition evidence from a separate Donore Avenue clip inadmissible because the driver’s appearance was too fleeting and indistinct.
The Court of Appeal found no error in admitting the White Swan footage or in the trial court giving the recognition evidence some weight. It acknowledged procedural shortcomings, including undated statements and missing records, but held that, in this case, they did not prevent the trial court from relying on the two officers’ evidence. The trial court had cautioned itself about recognition evidence and said it would not have relied on it alone. The appeal court noted that the trial court considered recognition useful but not essential to its conclusion.
The court also rejected Thompson’s argument that the trial court had wrongly combined circumstantial evidence or counted it twice. The trial court had considered vehicle movements, Thompson’s conduct on Meath Street around the time of the shooting, later CCTV showing him with two men linked by the prosecution to the case, forensic evidence, and inferences from his failure to answer questions in interviews. The appeal court said the trial court had engaged with the issues raised and rejected this ground.
On privacy and data protection, Thompson argued that CCTV gathered from private premises breached his rights and should have been excluded. The Court of Appeal held that even if operators had infringed data protection requirements, that would not automatically make the footage inadmissible. It agreed that the recordings captured people and vehicles in public places in a non-targeted way and found no breach of Thompson’s constitutional right to privacy. It therefore did not need to consider the exclusionary rule.
The Court of Appeal refused all three grounds of appeal. The judgment, delivered on 30 January 2024, leaves the murder conviction undisturbed.