The Court of Appeal has dismissed Christopher Rice’s appeals against his convictions and sentence following a jury trial at Clonmel Circuit Criminal Court.
Rice’s convictions were recorded on 2 March 2017. They covered assault, an offence under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, producing an article under that Act, criminal damage and aggravated burglary. The court record says the first two counts resulted in concurrent 12-month prison terms, while the production and criminal damage counts were taken into consideration. The aggravated burglary sentence was five years, with the final 12 months suspended on conditions, to begin after the legal expiry of an earlier six-year sentence with its final two years suspended.
The offences arose from events in Cahir on 4 and 5 April 2016. The judgment recounts evidence that, after a dispute at an apartment, Rice was asked to leave, then returned by kicking in the door. It says he took a knife belonging to the apartment and waved it at Shannon Power, slightly cutting a knuckle. Rice denied assaulting anyone, producing a knife or unlawfully re-entering the apartment. These are accounts set out in the appeal judgment; the Court of Appeal was deciding appeals, not retrying the events.
Rice’s counsel focused the conviction appeal on the trial judge’s decision to allow Garda Sarah Jane Fitzgerald to give evidence after both sides had closed their cases. The application followed defence witness Louise O’Donoghue’s reference to scissors and a question about whether another person had been searched. Fitzgerald told the jury that a search had found no weapon or scissors. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had properly allowed the rebuttal evidence and that it was neutral and unlikely to have swayed the jury.
The court also rejected complaints about warnings given to civilian witnesses, the jury directions and the treatment of recklessness. It said the witnesses were addressed outside the jury’s presence, were not told to conform their evidence to prior statements, and were cross-examined. It found the jury charge balanced, including its explanations of the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proof.
On sentence, the court said the sentencing judge had considered Rice’s previous 53 convictions, the seriousness of the offending and the fact that it occurred while he was on temporary release. It found no error in making the five-year term consecutive to the earlier sentence. The court also rejected the argument that Rice should receive credit against the new sentence for time in custody after his return to prison, and concluded that suspending the final year respected totality and proportionality.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.