The Court of Appeal dismissed Jonathan O’Sullivan’s appeal against his conviction for possessing a firearm and one round of ammunition, finding that the trial judge’s interventions had not made the trial unfair.
The judgment, delivered on 15 July 2022 by Mr Justice McCarthy, concerned a conviction following a trial in Cork Circuit Criminal Court. O’Sullivan had received a 10-year prison sentence, backdated to 23 March 2020, when he went into custody.
The offences arose after gardaí found a locked Audi in a Cork City cul-de-sac at about 1.30am on 23 March 2020. They said they saw a G9 automatic pistol in the driver’s footwell through a window. O’Sullivan was nearby and had a key to the vehicle. A search of the car also found a can of petrol on the passenger seat. The firearm contained one round.
O’Sullivan told gardaí, and later the trial, that he had agreed to drive the vehicle for €500 but had not seen or known about the firearm. His defence accepted that the gun was in the car but disputed that it had been visible in the position described by the garda witnesses. The Court of Appeal said the defence account effectively implied that the firearm had been moved or repositioned, and that the gardaí were mistaken or lying about seeing it where they said they did.
The appeal relied on one ground: that the trial judge had misrepresented or misinterpreted the defence case to the jury by suggesting that it alleged the gardaí had “planted” the firearm. The defence argued that the judge’s blunt wording, used in exchanges during evidence, contributed to an unfair trial. The prosecution pointed out that defence counsel had not objected at the time, sought to have the jury leave, or asked the judge to correct any impression before or after the jury charge. A separate criticism of the charge had been withdrawn.
The appeal court said the trial judge was trying to establish clearly what the defence case was, given what it considered the unavoidable implication of the evidence. It held that the limited exchanges, which were with counsel, did not undermine cross-examination or prevent either the appellant or the Garda witness from giving their account fully. The judge had not departed from the role of a neutral umpire, the court said, and had not crossed the limits on judicial intervention discussed in an earlier decision.
The court therefore dismissed the appeal. The judgment records no change to the conviction or sentence.