The Court of Appeal has dismissed Stephen Wilson’s appeal against his conviction for a burglary at the Courthouse Hotel in Ballina, finding that the trial judge’s warning to the jury about recognition evidence was adequate and that the CCTV footage was admissible circumstantial evidence.
Wilson was convicted by a 10:2 majority verdict. The burglary took place on 19 May 2015, and he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment after his trial concluded on 22 October 2015.
The prosecution case relied on Garda Taaffe’s recognition of Wilson in hotel CCTV. The footage showed a person entering the hotel after 5.30am and going to the bar, where touching the till screen illuminated the area and made the person’s face visible. Taaffe said she recognised Wilson, whom she knew from her work in Ballina. She also viewed footage recorded at Ballyshannon Garda Station the previous evening, which showed Wilson leaving in clothing she considered similar to that worn by the person in the hotel.
Other CCTV footage came from three nearby premises: Mulligan’s Pharmacy, Ballina Motor Factors and Kevin Kennedy Motors. The court said the pharmacy footage, recorded within minutes of the hotel entry, showed a person looking in the window. Wilson’s counsel accepted at trial that the person was Wilson; the defence explanation was that he was in the area to catch the 6.30am bus to Dublin. The other two clips did not show a face, but the Court of Appeal said the footage’s proximity in time and place supported the likelihood that the same person appeared in each clip.
On appeal, Wilson argued that the trial judge’s warning about recognition evidence lacked adequate context and solemnity. The court noted that the defence had made no requisition after the jury charge. It nevertheless considered the warning in the circumstances of the case and concluded it was “entirely adequate”, with no unfairness to Wilson.
Wilson also challenged the admission of three CCTV clips, arguing their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value. The court rejected that ground, describing the linked footage as relevant, admissible circumstantial evidence. It dismissed the appeal against conviction. The judgment does not alter the sentence imposed at trial.