The Court of Appeal has dismissed Stephen O’Reilly’s appeal against his convictions for assault causing harm, criminal damage and producing articles capable of causing serious injury. The convictions followed a jury trial and a ruling admitting a witness’s earlier statement under section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.
O’Reilly was found guilty on counts 1 to 6 by a unanimous jury and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended. The trial judge had directed acquittals on counts 7 and 8. The appeal challenged the admission of Adam Doherty’s initial statement to gardaí, in which he identified O’Reilly as the man carrying a machete during an incident at Doherty’s home in Clara, County Offaly, on 7 May 2016.
At trial, Doherty said the man with the knife was someone else whom he had later seen in Athlone. He had withdrawn his initial statement. The prosecution applied to have that statement admitted because it was materially inconsistent with Doherty’s trial evidence. The trial judge held a hearing without the jury, found the statement voluntary and reliable, rejected Doherty’s explanation for changing his account and allowed it into evidence.
O’Reilly argued on appeal that the judge had wrongly assessed whether the accounts were materially inconsistent and whether the statement was reliable. He also argued that the judge had failed to give proper consideration to fairness, the interests of justice and whether the statement was necessary. The prosecution relied on the trial judge’s assessment of the witnesses and the circumstances in which Doherty made the statement.
The Court of Appeal said a section 16 application required careful scrutiny, while giving considerable weight to the trial judge’s findings on witness credibility. It found there was ample evidence for the judge to conclude that Doherty’s initial statement was materially inconsistent with his testimony and reliable. The court noted it was made shortly after the incident, identified O’Reilly and included a description of him; Doherty had also acknowledged that he was required to tell the truth and had made a statutory declaration.
The court concluded that the trial judge had considered reliability, Doherty’s explanation, fairness, the interests of justice and necessity. The statement was the only evidence identifying O’Reilly, the court said. It noted that the prosecution’s failure to pursue other identification avenues, such as an identification parade, might attract criticism, but was not a bar to admitting the statement under section 16. It found no error in the ruling and dismissed the appeal. The appeal judgment did not alter the convictions or sentence.