The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a man identified as Bob against his convictions for burglary, criminal damage, threatening to cause criminal damage and breaching a protection order.
A jury convicted him in the Circuit Criminal Court in Cork on 11 November 2017, after a contested trial. He was sentenced on 6 March 2018 to five years in prison, with the final two years suspended. The sentence was backdated to 16 March 2017.
The appeal concerned events in Cork City on 16 March 2017 involving the appellant’s estranged wife, identified as KOB, and daughter, identified as AOB. The judgment records that KOB had obtained a protection order on 27 February 2017. At trial, KOB said the appellant shouted at her and threw water from a bottle at her car as she drove their sons to school.
AOB told the trial that the appellant threatened to burn down her house during an encounter outside her workplace. She later returned home to find a patio door smashed and a canister of fuel inside. Her boyfriend, identified as PM, testified that he found the appellant in the bedroom where he had been sleeping and that the carpet outside was drenched. These accounts were evidence at the trial; the appeal court was reviewing the convictions, not retrying the allegations.
The appellant argued that the protection-order count should have been separated from the other charges because it involved a different complainant and could unfairly prejudice the jury. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the alleged offences occurred within about three hours and formed part of the same events. The appeal court agreed that the order was closely connected to the breach allegation and provided relevant context to the burglary charge. It held that the trial judge was entitled to refuse severance.
The other grounds concerned two remarks by AOB during cross-examination. She referred to things the appellant had said on previous occasions and said he had been brought to Cork Prison after the events. The defence sought to have the jury discharged. The appeal court found neither remark required that step: the prison reference was linked to the matters before the trial, and the earlier-threat reference did not have the significance claimed in the circumstances.
Considering the complaints cumulatively, the court was not persuaded that the trial was unfair or unsatisfactory, or that the verdict was unsafe. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment addresses the conviction appeal; it does not make a new sentencing order.