The Court of Appeal has dismissed Kevin Coade’s appeal against his burglary conviction, finding that the trial was not unfair and the conviction was not unsafe.
Coade was convicted after a trial in Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 25 February 2019 and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended. The sentence was dated from 2 August 2018. The appeal challenged the admission of recognition evidence based on CCTV footage, the trial judge’s refusal to direct the jury to acquit, and the failure to give the jury a warning about alleged lies. A fourth ground was no longer pursued.
The burglary took place on 25 July 2018 at the home of Nora Power on Annmount, Cork. The prosecution alleged that Coade was one of two men seen leaving the house. CCTV from the Friars Walk Tavern showed two men, one carrying bags. Michael Finn, a neighbour who had known Coade for several years, viewed the footage and identified him as the man carrying the bags.
The defence argued that police should have held an identification parade, particularly after Coade said he would take part. The trial judge admitted Finn’s evidence after hearing why police had not arranged a parade, including that some potential witnesses were unavailable and others were considered unsuitable. The Court of Appeal said CCTV viewing raises different issues from informal identification: jurors can see the footage and assess the viewing opportunity themselves. It held that the trial judge was right to admit Finn’s evidence. The judge had separately barred two Gardaí from giving recognition evidence from the footage, to prevent them bolstering Finn’s identification.
The defence also argued that inconsistencies and the limited time available to commit the burglary required a direction to acquit. The appeal court agreed with the trial judge that those matters were for the jury to assess.
A further ground concerned the prosecution’s use of CCTV evidence that appeared to conflict with Coade’s account of his movements that night. The defence suggested any discrepancy could have resulted from a mistake or an error in viewing the footage, and disputed that Coade had lied. The appeal court said a warning against drawing conclusions from an alleged lie might have been given, but a modified Lucas direction was not required. The trial judge had discretion to decide whether to give one and was not at fault for declining.
The appeal court dismissed the appeal, rejecting all grounds argued.