The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused to reconsider its earlier order directing a retrial for Dermot Laide, and has ruled that it had no jurisdiction to certify a point of law for appeal to the Supreme Court under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924.
The supplementary judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McCracken on 29 June 2005, dealt with two applications by Laide following the court’s 24 February 2005 judgment. That earlier judgment had found his conviction unsafe and ordered a retrial. The supplementary ruling did not revisit that substantive decision.
Laide’s counsel, Michael O’Higgins SC, argued that the retrial should not have been ordered. He submitted that the indictment meant Laide could be convicted of manslaughter only on the basis of a common design involving the four original accused. The court acknowledged that it had not ruled on that issue in February, but said the retrial direction formed part of its substantive order. Under section 3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993, the court could quash a conviction without further order or quash it and order a retrial; it could not quash first and decide the retrial question later.
The court said Laide could have argued at the original appeal that a retrial was not appropriate. It found no recognised basis to reopen the order, including a procedural error or breach of constitutional rights, and declined to hear further arguments against the retrial direction.
Laide also sought a section 29 certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court on whether the manslaughter charge required proof of common design. He argued that the other people alleged to have shared that design had been acquitted of manslaughter, so he could not be convicted on retrial if common design was essential to the charge.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in *The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Campbell* (2004), the court held that section 29 did not allow an appeal where the Court of Criminal Appeal had quashed a conviction and ordered a retrial. It therefore said it had no jurisdiction to issue the certificate. The supplementary judgment did not determine whether common design was an essential ingredient of the charge or whether Laide could be convicted at retrial.