The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Yu Jie leave to appeal his conviction on two counts of murder, finding no basis to disturb the trial judge’s rulings on the issues raised. The court’s judgment was delivered by Mr Justice McCracken on 28 July 2005.
Yu Jie had been convicted by a jury after a trial lasting about 58 days and received the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The appeal court said the prosecution case was largely circumstantial. It noted evidence that the two deceased died by strangulation, probably on 12 March 2001, and that an attempt was made to set fire to their apartment in Blackhall Square in the early hours of 14 March.
The appeal raised several challenges to evidence admitted at trial. Yu Jie argued that gardaí breached his right to silence by continuing to question him after he said he did not want further questions. The court said he had been advised of that right, and agreed with the trial judge’s assessment from the interview recordings that his answers were voluntary. It held that the questioning was fair and did not breach his right to silence.
He also objected that the interpreter was a Chinese police officer seconded to Interpol. The court relied on the trial judge’s review of the video recording and found no impropriety. It noted there had been no objection to the interpreter during the interview and no suggestion of bias or intimidation. The court also rejected the argument that a solicitor should have been present during questioning, citing the position in Irish law that a solicitor is not entitled to attend interviews.
The court dismissed claims that photographs were presented unfairly to elicit an identification. It found that the interview transcript showed Yu Jie identified himself in the initial photographs before being shown the photograph from Blackhall Square. It also upheld the trial judge’s handling of evidence from Arunee Hennessy, who testified that Yu Jie had told her he lost £1,000 gambling on blackjack in one day. The prosecution had advanced theft as the primary motive; the trial judge left the significance of the evidence to the jury.
Finally, the appeal court held that the gardaí were not required to destroy fingerprints and other evidence under section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. Although Yu Jie had been released and recharged after procedural problems, the court concluded he was ultimately tried on the original charges, which had not been discontinued, and that he had not been discharged from them. The court’s order was to refuse leave to appeal; it did not set aside the convictions or sentence.