The Court of Appeal has dismissed Stephen Cahoon’s appeal against his conviction for the 2008 murder of Jean Quigley, finding that the trial judge was entitled to admit statements made by witness James Casey under section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.
Cahoon was convicted by a unanimous jury on 3 December 2015, following his third trial for Quigley’s murder. The first trial ended with a disagreement, and the conviction from the second trial had been set aside. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 28 November 2017.
Casey told police that Cahoon had come to his Letterkenny home in the early hours of 27 July 2008, upset and shaking, and said he had “done something bad” to Quigley. Casey’s statements described Cahoon saying he had taken Quigley upstairs, assaulted her and used tape to stop her screaming. At trial, Casey acknowledged signing the statements and meeting Cahoon, but said he could not remember much of their conversation. The trial judge found his account of memory problems and a claimed referral to a memory clinic untrue.
The appeal challenged the admission of Casey’s statements, arguing they were not voluntary or reliable and that their use was unfair. The prosecution submitted that the statutory conditions for admission had been met.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to overturn the trial judge’s finding that the statements were voluntary. It noted the judge had heard evidence from Casey and the police officers about his claim that he had been threatened, and had rejected that claim. The appeal court also considered how the statements were taken, including that Casey asked for one interview to be taken off tape and that he later read and agreed to the statements, which included statutory declarations.
On reliability, the court said inconsistencies in Casey’s accounts did not necessarily make the statements inadmissible. It concluded the trial judge had considered the issue in detail and that the jury had been directed to assess the statements’ weight cautiously, taking account of the circumstances and Casey’s credibility. The appeal court described the jury’s role as deciding what weight, if any, to give the statements.
The court said the extent to which Casey’s evidence contributed to the guilty verdict was uncertain, noting Cahoon had been convicted in an earlier trial without Casey’s evidence. It nevertheless concluded that the statutory requirements for admitting the statements had been met and that the jury directions were fair and comprehensive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal; it did not conduct a new trial.