The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Kim Kavanagh leave to appeal her convictions for impeding the apprehension or prosecution of two co-accused following a 2006 pharmacy robbery in Dublin. The court considered five grounds of appeal and concluded that the trial judge had been entitled to admit evidence about the co-accuseds’ arrests, and that the disputed rulings and comments did not make the convictions unsafe or unsatisfactory.
Kavanagh had been charged with robbery, dangerous driving and two offences under section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1997. She was found not guilty of robbery and dangerous driving, but guilty of the two impeding offences. The trial court imposed concurrent two-year prison terms. The appeal court’s judgment, delivered on 24 July 2008, dealt with her application for leave to appeal both conviction and sentence; its final order refused leave to appeal against conviction.
The prosecution alleged Kavanagh drove a car from the scene while two men fled the vehicle during a Garda pursuit. The appeal court held that evidence about the men’s efforts to evade arrest, including the circumstances of their arrests, was relevant to the prosecution case that the driving was intended to impede their apprehension. It accepted the evidence could prejudice Kavanagh, but found its probative value outweighed that risk.
The court said the trial judge’s remarks while Kavanagh was giving evidence were “unwise”. The judge had suggested her manner appeared contrived after she repeatedly needed to speak up. However, the appeal court concluded the judge was trying to ensure the jury could hear her, and that, viewed in the context of the trial and the judge’s directions that the jury decide the facts, the comment did not render the verdicts unsafe.
The appeal also challenged the exclusion of evidence from clinical psychologist Brian Glanville and prosecution questioning about information in his reports. The reports addressed Kavanagh’s anxiety, depression and history of panic attacks. The appeal court agreed that the proposed opinion evidence was not relevant to guilt or innocence in this case and that the trial judge had correctly excluded it. It also found the prosecution had not deliberately misused the reports in cross-examination.
The court concluded that Kavanagh had put her good character in issue through defence questions and her own evidence about her previous dealings with Gardaí. It therefore held the challenged questions about her past drug use were permissible. The judgment records that she was acquitted of the robbery and dangerous-driving charges; it did not grant leave to appeal the two impeding convictions.