The Court of Appeal has dismissed Samuel Devlin’s appeal against his conviction for possessing explosives in suspicious circumstances, leaving in place the six-year prison sentence imposed after his trial before the Special Criminal Court.
In a judgment delivered on 6 July 2017, the court rejected challenges to the warrant used to search a suite at Finnstown House Hotel and Resort in Lucan, the admission of DNA evidence and the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution had proved possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Gardaí searched the suite on 11 May 2014 and found 26 metres of detonator cord containing PETN, an explosive substance. The cord was wrapped in a towel inside a laptop case on a shelf. Fingerprint evidence linked Mr Devlin to the laptop, while DNA evidence linked him to its plug. The room also contained cards and other documents in his name, as well as quadcopters, wiring, switches, tools and other equipment.
The prosecution said Mr Devlin was residing in the suite, which had been booked under the name “Joe Murphy”. The appeal court described the case as circumstantial. Mr Devlin argued that occupation of the room did not establish he knew about the cord, which was concealed and could resemble electrical cable. The court held there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s findings, even after excluding evidence about a nearby waste bin and any inferences from Mr Devlin’s interviews. The Special Criminal Court had rejected those parts of the prosecution case, and the prosecution had conceded that drawing interview inferences was inappropriate.
The warrant was issued by a senior Garda officer at about 3.30am after a stolen car containing a homemade explosive device was found in the hotel car park the previous night. The appeal challenged whether urgency made it impracticable to apply to a District Court judge, and whether the issuing officer was independent because he was a cousin of the detective leading the operation. The Court of Appeal found the circumstances extremely urgent and said the issuing officer was independent of the investigation. It rejected the warrant challenge.
The court also rejected the challenge to DNA evidence. It agreed that Mr Devlin had been sufficiently informed that the sample could be used to prove or disprove his involvement in the offence. It dismissed a further objection to forensic scientist Dr Connolly’s evidence, describing the argument as lacking substance. The court said the remaining DNA evidence was of marginal significance after the waste-bin evidence was excluded.
The appeal was dismissed. The court was not persuaded that the trial was unsatisfactory or that the conviction was unsafe.