The Court of Appeal has dismissed Karen Harrington’s appeal against her conviction for the murder of two-year-old Santina Cawley, leaving the conviction in place. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy on 6 June 2024, addressed three grounds of appeal and found no basis to overturn the conviction.
Harrington argued that CCTV footage from a private home at 19 Clanrickarde Estate should not have been admitted at trial. She said its use infringed her privacy rights and data protection protections. The prosecution pointed out that no objection had been made at trial and that the defence had requested that part of the footage be shown to the jury.
The court held that the issue could not be raised for the first time on appeal in the circumstances. It also found that the appellant’s reliance on a European Union ruling about retained telephone data did not apply to CCTV gathered from households and businesses during a criminal investigation. The judges said the footage primarily showed communal walkways and stairwells. They concluded that it was relevant and proportionate to the investigation, and that even if an objection had been made, the footage would not have been excluded.
Harrington also challenged the admission of records of her first, third and fourth garda interviews, arguing that she had been unwell during the first interview and that the later interviews took place at night with an insufficient rest period between them. The court noted that no admissibility objection or hearing had been sought at trial. It also relied on formal concessions made by the defence, including that compliance with custody regulations was not in issue, and noted that Harrington’s solicitor had been present at all five interviews. The court rejected this ground.
The final ground concerned the trial judge’s direction to the jury on circumstantial evidence. Harrington argued that the direction was too brief and risked giving the jury an incorrect impression of the weight of that evidence. The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge had shared the proposed direction with counsel, added wording suggested by the defence, and invited comments and requisitions. No objection was made. The appeal court found the direction clear and consistent with the law, and rejected the challenge.
The court dismissed the appeal against conviction. It did not conduct a new trial or make a new finding on the underlying charge.