The Court of Appeal dismissed Michael Collins’s appeal against his conviction for murdering Patrick Hogan, finding that the trial judge’s recharging of the jury addressed potentially unfair comments and that no alternative manslaughter direction was required in the circumstances.
Collins was convicted after a six-day Central Criminal Court trial in November 2012. He appealed on two grounds: that the trial judge’s comments about the defence were unfair, and that the jury had not been adequately directed on unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter.
The judgment said the prosecution case was that, on 10 February 2011, Collins armed himself with a rifle, blocked Hogan’s vehicle on Glen Road, Blarney, and fired shots. A shot through the vehicle window struck Hogan in the chest and caused his death. Collins admitted firing shots but maintained that he intended only to frighten Hogan and that the fatal shot was accidental. The defence also relied on evidence that the rifle could discharge unintentionally if it struck the ground or was carried over rough ground.
On the first ground, the appeal court considered comments in the trial judge’s charge concerning the term “assassination” and the possibility of a jury returning what might seem a perverse acquittal. The trial judge later told jurors that the comments were unhelpful, were about legal concepts in the abstract and were not criticism of the defence. The appeal court held that this recharging adequately rectified any unfairness. It also noted that the defence had not raised a further objection after being invited to do so. The court concluded that the jury had been adequately told it could acquit on all counts.
On manslaughter, Collins argued that jurors needed a fuller explanation of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter, including that a dangerous unlawful act did not automatically make death a natural and probable consequence. The prosecution submitted that the defence had pursued an outright acquittal based on accident and had made a tactical choice not to advance manslaughter.
The appeal court said gross negligence manslaughter had not been raised at trial and a direction on it would have been superfluous in light of the defence case. It found no unusual circumstances requiring the trial judge to introduce an alternative defence that had not been relied on. The court said the overall charge, including the recharging, adequately addressed manslaughter in relation to the defence actually run. Both grounds failed, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.