The Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that a trial judge erred in directing acquittals for J.B. and S.M. without considering possible inferences from their refusals to account for matters during Garda questioning.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Brian Murray on 18 December 2024, concerns the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal against the directed acquittals. The charges included attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. J.B. also faced a criminal damage charge. The judgment is redacted pending retrial.
The Supreme Court considered whether the trial judge’s decision to withdraw the case from the jury was an error of law that could be appealed under section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010, and whether the evidence met the statutory threshold for such an appeal. It explained that deciding whether evidence is legally capable of supporting a conviction is a question of law, distinct from deciding what facts have been proved.
The trial judge had concluded that the prosecution case relied on circumstantial evidence and that a properly directed jury could not draw the inferences the prosecution sought. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence, considered cumulatively, should have been assessed by a jury.
The Supreme Court agreed, for a particular reason. It said the trial judge had failed to account for possible inferences under sections 18 and 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. Those provisions allow a court to draw proper inferences from a suspect’s failure or refusal to explain specified objects or marks, or their presence at a place. Such inferences may be capable of corroborating other evidence where the refusal is material. A person cannot be convicted solely or mainly on those inferences.
The possible inferences concerned J.B.’s refusal to account for firearm residue on gloves found in his possession, and both appellants’ refusal to explain their presence in a vehicle stopped about 20 minutes after the shooting. The court set aside from its analysis a separate request concerning S.M.’s presence near another vehicle several hours before the attack. It did not decide whether that request fell within section 19’s timing requirement, saying the issue had not been argued in detail.
The Supreme Court said all evidence that a jury might consider, including any proper statutory inferences, must be taken into account on an application to withdraw a case. It concluded that the combined circumstantial evidence and inferences could allow a jury reasonably to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It therefore agreed that the trial judge erred in law in withdrawing the case from the jury.
The court said it would address separately whether there should be a retrial. It also cautioned that issues about compliance with the statutory conditions for invoking the inference provisions could arise at any retrial and had not been prominent at the original trial.