The Court of Appeal has dismissed Keith Hughes’s appeal against his conviction for robbing a Dundalk betting shop and possessing a bladed article in a public place. The court rejected all four grounds of appeal and left in place concurrent six-year prison sentences, with the final year suspended on conditions for two years after release.
The offences were committed on 22 May 2015 at Bar One Racing in Bridge Street, Dundalk. The judgment says Hughes entered the premises with a knife and took €235 from employee Paul McCourt. The incident was recorded by four CCTV cameras.
Hughes argued that the CCTV had been admitted without sufficient proof, that a still photograph had been admitted and the trial judge wrongly refused to recall owner Karen Savage, that the trial judge should have directed the jury to acquit at the close of the prosecution case, and that the jury had not been properly directed on identification.
The appeal court found that Garda Smyth had downloaded the footage alone, without anyone specifically identifying the recording to him at the time. It described this as a technical gap in proof that the footage was the original recording. However, Savage had authorised the download and was in the building, the recording system was based at the linked Ramparts premises, and there was no evidence or suggestion that the footage had been altered. The trial judge was entitled to admit it, the appeal court ruled.
The court also upheld the admission of a still image that Smyth said he had printed from the CCTV. It said the image had been listed in the Book of Evidence and its source was established. Savage had mentioned bringing a picture to the shop, but that image was not shown to the jury. The court said the possibility it might have helped Hughes was speculation and upheld the refusal to recall her.
On identification, the court said CCTV can be considered by a jury as real evidence, even when no witness identifies the accused in the footage. The prosecution had also called a cleaner, Ms Meehan, who estimated the man’s height at about 5ft 8ins. The appeal court considered the CCTV evidence strong and found there was evidence on which the jury could decide the case.
The trial judge had cautioned jurors to examine the footage and stills carefully, compare them with Hughes, and convict only if sure beyond reasonable doubt. She also reminded them that any reasonable doubt must benefit him. The appeal court found the directions adequate and dismissed the appeal. It did not order a retrial or vary the sentence.