The Court of Appeal has quashed the manslaughter convictions of Eleanor Joel and Jonathan Costen over the death of Evelyn Joel, finding that each appellant had succeeded on a number of appeal grounds. The judgment, delivered on 4 March 2016, dealt with the convictions only. A separate review sought by the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning the sentences was outside its scope.
The appellants were convicted by an 11-to-1 jury majority at Wexford Circuit Court on 7 December 2012. Each received a two-year prison sentence, suspended on condition of completing 240 hours of community service. The prosecution case was that neglect while Evelyn Joel lived in the appellants’ home contributed to her death. She had advanced multiple sclerosis and died in Wexford General Hospital on 7 January 2006, after developing pneumonia.
The Court of Appeal said the retrial should have been transferred from Wexford to Dublin because of extensive local coverage of the earlier trial, including material that would not be admitted at the retrial. It also allowed Eleanor Joel’s appeal over the replacement of a juror in the absence of her legal advisers. For Jonathan Costen, whose junior counsel was present during the exchange about the replacement, the court said that issue alone would not have justified quashing his conviction.
The court also found the retrial unsatisfactory because health professionals who had dealt with Evelyn Joel were material witnesses but were neither called nor made available for cross-examination. It held that the jury should have been directed to decide whether the accused’s acts or omissions were a substantial cause of death. The trial direction blurred that test with whether their involvement was “more than minimal”. The court nevertheless concluded there was sufficient evidence for the causation issue to go to a properly directed jury; that appeal ground failed.
Jonathan Costen’s appeal also succeeded on the direction about duty of care. The court said the jury should have been told that there is generally no obligation to care for another, and that the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he came within an exception, such as having assumed responsibility. The court quashed both convictions. It did not determine the DPP’s separate sentence review in this judgment.