The Court of Appeal has refused to award John O’Donoghue his legal costs for his trial and successful appeal, despite finding that Gardaí failed to properly investigate CCTV footage that could have captured the incident at the centre of the case.
In a judgment delivered on 6 June 2024, the court said the CCTV failure deprived O’Donoghue of a realistic prospect of a defence. It had previously quashed his convictions for assault causing serious harm and violent disorder. The court stressed that its finding did not decide what happened during the incident or reject the injured man’s account.
The case arose from a melee at Kealy’s Yard, Bothar Buí, Rathkeale, on 16 December 2017. William O’Driscoll Senior and seven male relatives had travelled from Newry for an engagement party and stayed overnight at the yard. O’Donoghue arrived the following morning with several relatives. O’Driscoll Senior suffered very serious injuries. He said O’Donoghue attacked him with a machete; the defence case put to a witness at trial was that O’Driscoll Senior was injured when his son, James O’Driscoll, tried to attack O’Donoghue.
O’Donoghue had told investigating Gardaí the day after the incident that O’Driscoll Senior assaulted him, but did not give them the account later put to witnesses at trial. The appeal court found that guards knew of his allegation, had visited a house whose CCTV was likely operational and may have captured the events, but did not return to obtain footage. The court said the failure was a serious investigative deficit. What the cameras would have shown remains unknown.
The costs judgment treated the acquittal as the starting point for considering costs, but said costs do not automatically follow an acquittal in criminal proceedings. The court concluded that the prosecution had been justified in bringing the case, given the evidence available, and that nothing in the investigation itself raised a serious inherent doubt about guilt. It also noted that the prosecution did not learn of the CCTV issue until it emerged during the defence evidence.
The court rejected the suggestion that O’Donoghue’s two years in custody and claimed loss of livelihood affected its costs decision, noting there was no evidence about his employment, business or who funded his legal costs. It said the CCTV failure did not require a costs award. It also noted that the successful appeal ground was raised about three weeks before the hearing and found no basis to award appeal costs.
The court therefore refused costs for both the trial and appeal. O’Donoghue had not applied for legal aid in either court.