The Court of Appeal has dismissed Victor Akinlade’s appeal against convictions for violent disorder, assault causing harm and producing an article in the course of a dispute. The court said it would set a date to hear his separate appeal concerning the severity of his sentence.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh on 14 March 2024, addressed four grounds of appeal. The court rejected the argument that the trial judge’s failure to rule on whether a Garda’s entry onto the property was lawful caused injustice. It also rejected challenges to the jury directions on the baseball bat, violent disorder and production of an article.
The convictions arose from an incident on Ballyogan Avenue, Carrickmines, on 28 April 2018. At trial, Garda Ryan said he pursued co-accused Mr T to a house and that Akinlade later struck him with a metal baseball bat. Akinlade said he did not know Ryan was a Garda, believed a civilian was attacking his home and family, and wielded the bat to frighten him away. He denied striking Ryan. The jury found him guilty on all three counts in May 2022.
On the entry issue, Akinlade’s counsel had asked the trial judge to rule whether Garda Ryan’s entry was unlawful so counsel could refer to that in closing arguments. The Court of Appeal noted there had been no challenge to evidence obtained through the entry and no application for a directed acquittal. It said the legality of the entry was peripheral to the defence, the judge did not contradict counsel’s argument to the jury, and the issue was not pursued after the jury charge. The court concluded the absence of a ruling caused no possible injustice.
The jury had asked whether it mattered that the bat was not metal, as stated in the indictment. The trial judge told jurors the exhibit was wooden and that they could acquit if they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a metal bat had been produced. The appeal court said the bat’s material was irrelevant because Akinlade had identified the exhibit as the item he produced during the incident. It said that, even if the judge had not fully clarified the matter, it would apply the proviso in section 3(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 to uphold the conviction, as no injustice would result.
The court also rejected the remaining grounds, which challenged directions on violent disorder and production of an article. It dismissed the appeal against conviction; it did not decide the separate sentence-severity appeal in this judgment.