The Supreme Court has dismissed Waldemar Solowiow’s appeal against his murder conviction, ruling that the trial judge’s warning to the jury about his lies was not fundamentally flawed. The Court affirmed the conviction.
The appeal concerned whether the jury should have been told more explicitly that a person who acted under provocation might have a reason to lie similar to someone who committed murder deliberately. The defence argued that the trial judge’s modified “Lucas warning” did not sufficiently explain how the jury could consider the lies when deciding between murder and manslaughter.
The Court said a warning about lies should reflect the context and importance of those lies in the case. It found that, by the time of trial, Solowiow’s involvement in Mary Ryan’s death was not disputed. The central issue for the jury was whether the killing was murder or manslaughter, including whether provocation or lack of intent applied. The lies were therefore a secondary matter, although they could affect his credibility.
The judgment recounted that Solowiow had told friends that Ryan was attacked by three men in the street, and repeated that account in his first six Garda interviews. Forensic evidence placed her fatal injuries in the couple’s flat. He later admitted killing her. At trial, he said he had lied because he was afraid. The jury also heard evidence about the severity of Ryan’s injuries and the delay before emergency assistance was sought.
The trial judge told jurors that people may lie for reasons other than guilt, including shame, panic, confusion or a desire to conceal other conduct. He also referred to Solowiow’s explanation. The Supreme Court considered the charge as a whole and concluded that it gave the essence of the required warning; omitting the additional sentence proposed on appeal did not make it fundamentally deficient or cause injustice.
A separate issue was whether the appeal could raise a criticism that had not been brought to the trial judge’s attention. The Supreme Court applied the principles in People (DPP) v Cronin (No. 2), under which an explanation is required for failing to raise an issue at trial, and an unraised point is generally permitted on appeal only where a substantive error or oversight caused fundamental injustice. No explanation was given for the absence of a requisition on the warning. The Court held that those requirements were not met and dismissed the appeal.