The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Glen Creed leave to appeal his robbery conviction, holding that the trial judge’s evidence rulings were in order and that he had received a fair trial. The court considered the complaint that gardaí failed to secure access to a solicitor, but did not find that the failure was deliberate and conscious or that the trial judge’s rulings were wrong in law.
Creed had been convicted in Naas Circuit Court of robbery and unauthorised use of a mechanically propelled vehicle. Although the leave application was ambiguous about whether both convictions were challenged, only the proposed appeal against the robbery conviction was pursued.
The court rejected the argument that gaps in the chain of evidence meant the case should have been withdrawn from the jury. It said there was strong circumstantial evidence and the jury could convict without speculating. The evidence included clothing recovered from a bag that Creed’s sister gave to a detective. Blood from one injured hotel worker was found on a jacket and sweatshirt in the bag, while Creed’s DNA was found on a T-shirt.
The court also rejected the complaint about the trial judge’s directions concerning exhibits and DNA evidence. It found no defect in the charge and noted that no requisition had been made at trial. It refused leave on that ground.
On solicitor access, the judgment said Creed requested a particular solicitor after his arrest. The member in charge made several late-night calls to the solicitor’s office landline, received no answer, did not seek another contact number and did not tell Creed that contact had failed, as custody regulations required. The court described the handling as lacking common sense and proper care, but upheld the trial judge’s finding that the failure was not deliberate and conscious.
The trial judge had excluded answers Creed gave during questioning at the station but admitted a hair sample taken the following morning, under authorisation from a superintendent, for DNA analysis. The appeal court said that, where reasonable efforts to obtain a solicitor were lacking but there was no deliberate and conscious breach, admissibility depended on the trial judge’s discretion. It held that the hair-sample ruling was not wrong in law, noting that Creed did not raise the absence of a solicitor with the different garda handling him the next morning.
The court concluded that the trial had been fair and refused leave to appeal. It did not decide an appeal on the merits of the robbery conviction.