The Court of Appeal has refused Alan Boohan’s application to extend the time for appealing his conviction for assault causing serious harm, imposed in Limerick Circuit Court in October 2015.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 23 July 2018, President Birmingham said the appeal was “very substantially out of time”. The court concluded that the material before it did not justify extending the deadline and refused the application. It did not hear or determine an appeal against the conviction.
Boohan, representing himself in the application, had previously been represented by a solicitor and senior and junior counsel at trial. The Court of Appeal was told that an earlier trial had ended in disagreement. The court also noted that the jury had added a rider indicating that it reached its verdict on the basis of recklessness. Boohan received a three-year prison sentence, suspended in full; the judgment said the sentence had not been the subject of review.
Boohan sought more time while pursuing further evidence, including material about whether the injured party’s wounds were self-inflicted. The court said it had limited information about the trials and that self-infliction did not appear to have been an issue at either trial, although it had occurred to Boohan. Medical evidence had apparently been read by agreement.
The court considered reports from forensic pathologists that expressed opposing views. Professor Busuttil, whose report Boohan submitted, said he could not agree that a neck wound suffered by Eoghan O’Callaghan was self-inflicted. The judgment also referred to a statement by German forensic expert Dr Ulrike Böhm, who, on the information made available to her, had considered self-mutilation highly probable.
Boohan also referred to a person who told him that a van belonging to him had been driven by O’Callaghan shortly before the incident and later had broken glass but no blood. The court said this information was potentially available at trial. It noted that a forensic examination of the van had apparently not been possible after it was removed following an impact, and said the claimed absence of blood could have been investigated by seeking witnesses who had contact with the van.
The court said the alleged offence occurred in 2001 and that finality in criminal litigation served the interests of justice. It expressed sympathy for Boohan and acknowledged his efforts, but said it was not persuaded that a basis for reopening the case had been established at that time.