The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Joe Synnott’s appeal against his convictions on three counts arising from a purported 2007 road accident and related insurance claims.
The court, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 11 October 2016, found no basis to overturn the convictions. It also refused permission to add two grounds of appeal raised almost five years after the trial.
A jury at Wexford Circuit Criminal Court convicted Synnott on 14 April 2011 of causing loss by deception, corruption in office and knowingly using a document containing a false statement. The prosecution alleged that no accident had occurred on Newtown Road, Wexford, on 9 September 2007, and that false Garda reports were created to support insurance claims. The judgment records compensation payments of €9,910 and €13,422 to the two vehicle owners.
Synnott, a Garda stationed at Wexford Garda Station, admitted at trial that he had not attended an accident scene that day. The court said the case on the first count was advanced on the basis that he either participated in a common design or assisted others who were acting together. It held there was evidence from which a jury could infer that the reports were intended to support the claims if insurers sought confirmation of an accident. The fact that the insurers did not request Garda records did not prevent the case from going to the jury.
The appeal court also upheld the trial judge’s refusal to direct acquittals on the second and third counts. It found evidence capable of supporting the allegations that Synnott knowingly made false official representations and used a report he knew to be false. These were conclusions about whether the evidence could be considered by a jury, not new findings of guilt at the appeal stage.
The court rejected complaints that the jury had not been properly instructed on “inducement” or the criminal standard of proof. It said “induce” carried its ordinary meaning and that the jury had been clearly instructed that each offence had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Synnott had also sought leave to add grounds alleging that the trial judge improperly introduced accessorial liability and failed to put the defence case adequately. The court said there had been no satisfactory explanation for raising them so late, and no trial-time objection that the defence had been taken by surprise. It refused leave on both grounds, finding that refusal would not result in a fundamental injustice.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed.