The Supreme Court has dismissed Sean Lane’s appeal against his convictions, finding no miscarriage of justice in the decision to try him jointly with a co-accused.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2024, the Court said the trial judge was entitled to refuse a separate trial and that the jury had been properly warned not to use the co-accused’s statements against Lane. It also found no basis to require the judge to intervene over the co-accused’s closing speech.
Lane was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Criminal Court in Tralee in July 2018 of causing serious harm to Eamonn Sheehy and producing a baseball bat in a dispute in a manner likely to intimidate. The case arose from an attack at Saint Stephen’s Park, Castleisland, on the night of 13 to 14 January 2018. Sheehy suffered permanent brain damage and could not give evidence or identify his assailant.
Lane admitted at trial that he struck Sheehy on the head with a bat, but relied on self-defence. His co-accused, Jason Keane Broderick, faced a separate charge of possessing a baseball bat in a public place with intent to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate. The jury convicted Broderick of that offence.
Broderick’s interviews with gardaí included statements blaming Lane for Sheehy’s injuries. The trial judge told jurors those statements were not evidence against Lane and had to be disregarded when considering his case. Lane’s counsel sought a separate trial on the fourth day, after Broderick’s counsel challenged evidence from witnesses who said Broderick had admitted involvement in the attack. The Supreme Court said Lane’s counsel secured the opportunity to question those witnesses about the alleged admissions.
The Court said applications to separate trials should ordinarily be made before trial, and late applications should be scrutinised closely. It reaffirmed that a joint trial may proceed despite one accused making a statement that incriminates another, provided the trial remains fair. A co-accused’s statement is not evidence against the other accused, and jurors must receive a clear warning to that effect.
The Court also considered Broderick’s counsel’s closing speech, which strongly criticised Lane’s self-defence account and twice told the jury it would find Lane guilty. It said defence counsel have considerable latitude to challenge a co-accused’s case, subject to fairness. The speech came close to the limits of what was fair, but, assessed in the context of the whole trial, did not cross the threshold of manifest unfairness requiring intervention.
The Supreme Court concluded that the jury had been repeatedly directed to consider the cases separately and decide them on the evidence, not counsel’s comments. It dismissed the appeal.