The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Brendan O’Sullivan’s application for leave to appeal his murder conviction, finding that the trial judge’s directions on self-defence were not deficient and that the jury did not need to be discharged over a brief reference to a “target sheet” that was never admitted in evidence.
O’Sullivan was convicted by a jury in the Central Criminal Court on 8 November 2010 of murdering Leslie Kenny. The shooting took place on 29 July 2009 in the front garden of O’Sullivan’s home on Pound Street, also known as O’Gorman Street, Kilrush, County Clare. He accepted that he shot Kenny four times with a double-barrelled shotgun but maintained that he acted in self-defence. He did not give evidence at trial; the defence relied on statements he made to gardaí.
On appeal, O’Sullivan argued that the trial judge had not adequately explained the partial self-defence route to a manslaughter verdict. The Court said a jury considering self-defence could acquit if the force was justified, convict of murder if the accused did not act in self-defence or knowingly used excessive force, or convict of manslaughter if the accused used excessive force but honestly believed it was necessary.
The appeal court said the trial judge could have expressed that distinction more clearly. However, considering the charge as a whole, it found the directions adequate: the judge had stressed that the prosecution bore the burden of proof and had addressed the accused’s subjective state of mind. The court added that even if the point had been decided for O’Sullivan, it would have upheld the conviction because it found no miscarriage of justice.
In reaching that view, the court referred to the evidence that the victim was unarmed and had been shot four times, with the shotgun’s safety catch and the need to reload requiring deliberation. It also noted inconsistencies in O’Sullivan’s accounts, including his later acceptance that Kenny had not chased his wife into the house, as he first claimed. The court said the jury plainly did not accept the primary self-defence case.
The separate challenge concerned a garda witness’s fleeting mention of a “target sheet” during evidence. The item was not introduced at trial. When jurors asked about it, the trial judge told them it was not in evidence, was irrelevant and should be ignored. The judge refused the defence application to discharge the jury. The appeal court held that the jury’s question did not show prejudicial speculation and that the judge’s direction was clear. It rejected this ground of appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.