The Court of Appeal has dismissed Sean Lane’s appeal against his convictions for causing serious harm and producing a baseball bat during a dispute, ruling that the trial judge was entitled to refuse his request for a separate trial from Jason Keane Broderick.
In a judgment delivered on 7 November 2022, Mr Justice Edwards said the trial judge had considered the arguments and exercised his discretion lawfully. The court found that Lane’s trial had not been unfair and that he had not suffered an injustice. The appeal concerned the refusal to separate the trials; the Court of Appeal upheld Lane’s convictions.
Lane and Broderick were tried together at Tralee Circuit Criminal Court, although they faced different charges. A jury convicted Lane in July 2018 of causing serious harm to Eamon Sheehy and producing a baseball bat in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person. He received concurrent prison sentences of nine years and three years. Broderick faced a charge concerning possession of an article in a public place, with intent to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate.
The charges arose from events in Castleisland in January 2018. The judgment records evidence that the group went to Sheehy’s home, where an altercation followed. Lane admitted hitting Sheehy on the head with the bat; he maintained at trial that he acted in self-defence, a claim the jury rejected. The appeal court noted other prosecution evidence about the assault, including Lane’s own admission and a witness’s account of repeated blows.
Lane argued that statements attributed to Broderick implicated him and risked unfairly influencing the jury. He also challenged comments made by Broderick’s counsel during closing speech, including statements that the jury would find Lane guilty. The prosecution argued the evidence was relevant to Broderick’s charge and to the sequence of events, and that the judge’s directions protected Lane’s right to a fair trial.
The appeal court said Broderick’s account did not take the prosecution case against Lane further than other evidence already presented. It also found that Broderick’s presence and possession of the bat were relevant to whether he had the intent required for his own charge. The court said the jury needed to hear the relevant evidence to assess the events and the participants’ states of mind.
The trial judge had instructed jurors to assess the evidence separately for each accused and told them that statements by Broderick referring to Lane were not evidence against Lane and had to be disregarded for that purpose. The Court of Appeal found no reason to believe the jury ignored that direction and dismissed the appeal.