The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jimmy Connors’s appeal against two convictions under section 11 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, finding there was sufficient evidence for the District Court to conclude that he was trespassing at two homes in Blackrock.
The appeal followed a case stated by a District Court judge and a High Court decision answering five legal questions about the proof required for the offences. By the time of the appeal, the only live issue was whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove the two charges.
The charges concerned the curtilages of homes at 86 and 88 Mount Merrion Avenue on 10 January 2014. The evidence, as set out in the judgment, was that Garda Andrew Doyle saw three men gathered at the front door of number 86 and then at the adjacent number 88. When questioned, they gave differing explanations, including that they were looking for work or collecting money. They said they did not know the residents. Doyle described their responses as evasive and defensive.
No resident or representative of either property gave evidence. The High Court had held that the District Court judge could rely on the Garda’s evidence to find, beyond reasonable doubt, that the men were on the properties as trespassers and intended to commit an offence. Connors argued on appeal that the evidence did not support that inference and that statements by the other men, along with evidence about a stolen watch found on one of them, should not count against him.
The Court of Appeal said evidence from an owner or occupier is the best proof of lack of permission, but it is not essential in every case. Trespass may be established through evidence of conduct, demeanour, activity, or reactions when challenged. Inconsistent or confused explanations may also be relevant. Whether that evidence is enough to prove the offence remains a matter for the trial judge.
The judgment noted that the watch was found on another man, who later pleaded guilty to possessing it unlawfully. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion on Connors’s appeal was that Garda Doyle’s evidence was sufficient to establish that Connors was trespassing at both properties and guilty of both charges. It upheld the High Court’s answers to the case-stated questions and dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not set out a new sentence or order on costs.