The Court of Appeal has dismissed Alan McNamara’s appeal against his conviction for the murder of Andrew O’Donoghue, rejecting challenges over provocation and the handling of a juror’s disclosed connection.
Mr McNamara was convicted by a unanimous jury in the Central Criminal Court on 31 July 2018 and received the mandatory life sentence. The appeal concerned the trial judge’s refusal to let the jury consider provocation as a partial defence, and the decision to continue the trial with 11 jurors after one juror was excused.
The court heard that Mr McNamara and his wife were attacked in Doon the night before the killing, and that his motorcycle club jacket was taken. A car later arrived at his home carrying Road Tramps Motorcycle Club members, who threatened his family. The following afternoon, Mr McNamara drove to the club’s premises with a loaded sawn-off shotgun. He fired at close range, killing Mr O’Donoghue, and later left the scene. These events were recounted as background to the appeal.
The defence argued at trial that the previous night’s assault and threats amounted to provocation. The prosecution submitted that the evidence did not support the defence, pointing to the roughly 16-hour interval and the absence of evidence that Mr O’Donoghue had been involved in the earlier events. The trial judge refused to leave provocation to the jury, finding no evidence of a sudden loss of self-control and that the earlier events were not sufficiently close in time.
On appeal, the court said the legal threshold for leaving provocation to a jury was low, but had not been reached. It held that the earlier events could not justify bringing a loaded shotgun to the clubhouse and firing at close range, and that the trial judge was correct to refuse the defence. The court rejected that ground of appeal.
The juror issue arose on the first day of trial, after the foreman disclosed that a juror knew a former Road Tramps member who had married an old friend of the juror. The trial judge questioned the juror and the other jurors, then excused the juror but allowed the trial to proceed with 11. The Court of Appeal described the connection as tenuous and said the judge acted reasonably both in excusing the juror and in declining to discharge the whole jury.
The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds and dismissed the appeal. The conviction and mandatory life sentence therefore remain in place.