The Court of Appeal has dismissed Andrejs Krauze’s appeal against his conviction for the murder of Juris Buls, finding no reason to doubt the fairness of his trial or the safety of the verdict.
A unanimous jury in the Central Criminal Court convicted Krauze on 29 March 2017 after a 13-day trial. The appeal court delivered its judgment on 21 March 2019. The charge alleged that Buls was murdered between 7 and 23 July 2011 in Glenamaddy, County Galway.
The prosecution case at trial was that Krauze travelled from Portadown to Glenamaddy with his brother, Serges, on 7 July 2011, and went to Buls’s home and killed him. It said the body was moved to Funshion Woods, near Glenamaddy. Buls, who was due to work a night shift at Titan Plastics that day, did not appear for work. His body was found in a drain in the woods on 23 July, after Serges directed gardaí to the area.
The appeal raised four grounds. Krauze challenged the admission of an interview conducted by Irish officers in Riga in March 2012, evidence about an earlier altercation with Buls, additional prosecution evidence during the trial, and the use of a Latvian police employee as interpreter.
The court rejected the challenge to the Riga interview. It noted that Krauze had been cautioned and given a Russian-language document explaining his rights. Although the appeal submissions raised differences between Latvian and Irish procedures, including the interview’s five-and-a-half-hour duration, the court said states had discretion over their procedures. It found no indication that the admissions were involuntary or that the interview notes inaccurately recorded what was said.
The court also upheld the trial judge’s decision to admit evidence of a February 2011 altercation. The prosecution had argued that the dispute, and Buls’s subsequent complaint to gardaí, provided a motive for the killing. The appeal court considered the evidence relevant and of considerable probative value, rather than merely evidence of bad character.
On additional evidence, the court found no indication the defence had been unable to deal with the prosecution case. The trial judge had said time would be allowed if needed, and the appeal court described the judge’s handling of the issue as patient and fair. It also rejected the interpreter challenge, noting there was no suggestion that Krauze’s words had been misinterpreted or inaccurately recorded.
The court dismissed the appeal. The judgment left the conviction in place; it did not order a retrial.