The Court of Criminal Appeal has rejected Craig White’s application for leave to appeal his conviction for murdering Noel Roche, finding no legal error in the trial judge’s rulings or directions to the jury.
White was convicted by a unanimous jury verdict on 29 July 2009 and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. The application, filed in December 2009, challenged seven aspects of the trial, including the admission and presentation of fingerprint evidence, the warrant for White’s arrest while in prison, the taking of forensic samples before his solicitor arrived, the decision to leave the case with the jury and directions on the burden of proof, silence and circumstantial evidence.
The court held that the fingerprint expert’s statement that he had “no doubt” about his results did not usurp the jury’s role or make the trial unfair. It also found no automatic legal requirement for a minimum number of fingerprint comparison points before evidence could be admitted; the weight of the evidence was for the jury.
White argued that the arrest warrant did not set out all three conditions under section 42(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1999. The court noted that information addressing those conditions had been put before the District Court judge. It concluded that the warrant was not invalid because it did not separately record the judge’s satisfaction on each condition. The court added that even if the warrant had not strictly conformed to the statute, that would not automatically invalidate the arrest and later proceedings in the circumstances of this case.
On the forensic samples, White had requested his solicitor after arriving at Raheny Garda Station. Gardaí made attempts to contact her, and the court said the samples were taken with White’s consent before she arrived. It found that his right to reasonable access to a solicitor had not been infringed and that the trial judge was entitled to admit the evidence.
The court also found there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury, including fingerprint and DNA evidence linking White to a paper bag containing the pistol, and DNA and fibre evidence relating to gloves found nearby. It did not decide that this evidence independently established guilt on appeal; it held that a properly directed jury could consider it and draw lawful inferences.
The court found the jury had been adequately told that White was presumed innocent, that the prosecution bore the burden of proof, and that no adverse inference should be drawn from his decision not to testify. It also upheld the direction on the “affront to common sense” inferences from circumstantial evidence, reading it in the context of the full charge.
The court rejected the application for leave to appeal. It did not set aside the conviction or sentence.