The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Trevor O’Shea leave to appeal his conviction for robbing a woman outside Dublin’s Pro Cathedral, rejecting challenges concerning CCTV footage, medical evidence and interview records.
A jury convicted O’Shea of robbery on 18 January 2012 after a five-day trial. He was sentenced to five years in prison, with the final year suspended on conditions. The court delivered its judgment on 27 November 2014, explaining that it had already refused the application at the end of the hearing and was now giving its reasons.
The robbery took place on 30 March 2010. The court’s account said the woman’s handbag was taken as she left the church on Marlborough Street. Investigators assembled a CCTV montage from recordings at 14 premises. The defence argued that, apart from footage from Ladbrokes, the prosecution had not called people able to explain the recording systems and establish the recordings’ authenticity. It also challenged the trial judge’s use of the balance of probabilities when deciding admissibility.
The appeal court agreed that evidence about the other 13 recordings did not provide the detail given by the Ladbrokes witness. But it rejected the challenge in the circumstances of this case: the montage combined 14 separate recordings, their links tended to corroborate one another, and the original footage remained available. The court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the balance of probabilities to the admissibility question. It stressed that the jury remained responsible for deciding the footage’s reliability and weight, and that the prosecution still had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The defence also sought a voir dire to examine differing medical opinions about O’Shea’s fitness for interview. The trial judge deferred the application; the defence did not renew it or later make further submissions challenging admissibility. The appeal court said the doctors’ differing conclusions went to weight and credibility for the jury. After one doctor referred to O’Shea’s methadone treatment, the trial judge directed jurors to put that evidence out of their minds. The appeal court found the direction appropriate.
Finally, the defence objected to “no comment” answers in five interview memoranda. The trial judge removed comments inserted by gardaí and deleted some, but not all, of O’Shea’s “no comment” responses, retaining some to give context to probative answers. The appeal court held that the trial judge had adequately protected his right to silence while allowing relevant interview evidence before the jury. It refused leave to appeal.