The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed appeals by Adriano Martins Costa and Joseclaudio Batista against their convictions for the murder of Paulo Siqueira, and affirmed both convictions. The judgment was delivered by Kearns J. on 21 January 2008, with Birmingham J. and Hedigan J. also on the court.
The applicants were convicted on 3 August 2006 after a trial in the Central Criminal Court. They had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, committed on 4 June 2005 at Ruanbeg Close, Kildare. A third accused, Alessandro De Almeida Mata, was acquitted.
The appeal court rejected Costa’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to put the case to the jury, particularly on his involvement in the later stages of the assault and the use of a wooden stake. The court said the prosecution evidence included accounts from witnesses who saw two men attack Siqueira, and Costa’s interview statement accepting that he was present and had punched the deceased. It found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether Costa continued to participate after knowing Batista had the stake. The court also held that the trial judge correctly directed the jury on joint enterprise.
Batista challenged the identification evidence given by Landry Zanga, arguing that the way he was identified in court was unfair and that the jury had not been adequately warned. The appeal court described the identification procedure as “not ideal”, but said the case was one of recognition: Zanga knew Batista before the assault as the man who lived above the crèche and drove a silver Nissan in the estate. The court found the procedure did not raise serious doubt about the identification, considered alongside the other prosecution evidence. It said the trial judge had given strong warnings about its reliability.
The court also rejected Batista’s challenges to the refusal of separate trials and the admission of his first interview, which was not video-recorded. It found the judge had properly exercised discretion in refusing separate trials and said there was no legal requirement to record the interview because Batista was not under arrest at the time. Other complaints, including about the jury charge and interpretation, did not affect the safety or reliability of the convictions, the court said.
The court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the convictions.