The Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed Brian Rattigan’s application for leave to appeal his conviction for the murder of Declan Gavin, rejecting challenges to evidence admitted at trial and to the trial judge’s closing directions to the jury.
Rattigan was convicted by majority verdict on 17 December 2009, following a 20-day trial. The charge concerned the fatal stabbing of Gavin at Crumlin Road, Dublin 12, in the early hours of 25 August 2001. The appeal court delivered judgment on 19 February 2013.
Two witnesses had given statements describing the assailant pursuing Gavin to the door of an Abrakebabra outlet. At trial, they professed to have no memory of the stabbing or the “knife man”. The trial judge admitted their statements under section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. The appeal court held that the witnesses’ trial evidence was materially inconsistent with their statements and that the section applied, although the events and statements predated the Act.
Rattigan argued that applying the provision was unfair because prosecution delays meant his trial took place after the Act came into force. The court rejected that argument, saying the passage of time alone did not establish the necessary prejudice and noting there was no evidence the witnesses would have testified differently at an earlier trial.
The appeal also challenged the trial judge’s concluding comments, which referred to the possibility of coincidence in explaining the evidence against Rattigan. The court found the comments forcefully expressed but not unbalanced or inappropriate when read in the context of the full jury charge. It said the judge could analyse the logic of the evidence without expressing a view on witness credibility or a contested factual issue.
The court rejected the remaining grounds, which included challenges concerning the conduct of the trial, Rattigan’s arrest and detention, interview evidence, expert evidence, fingerprints, and directions on circumstantial evidence. It concluded the trial judge was correct to refuse a defence application of no case to answer.
The court’s order was to dismiss the application for leave. The judgment does not set out a separate order quashing or otherwise varying the conviction.