The Court of Criminal Appeal refused John Bishop leave to appeal his conviction for conspiracy to rob, finding no basis to overturn the jury’s verdict. The application also concerned a conviction for using a mechanically propelled vehicle without its owner’s consent, but the court said that appeal was not being seriously pursued.
Bishop had been sentenced to 10 years for conspiracy to rob and five years for using the vehicle without consent. The court’s judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Geoghegan on 27 January 2005, addressed the conviction appeal; it did not grant leave to appeal or alter either sentence.
The trial took about six weeks before a jury in Portlaoise Circuit Court. Bishop was acquitted of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary and two firearms offences. The appeal court said those acquittals did not make the conspiracy-to-rob conviction inconsistent: it cited evidence including clothing and equipment found in cars near the bank, paint traces, and evidence that Bishop had said in Garda interviews that his role was to drive the getaway car.
Bishop challenged the admission of items found in a Peugeot parked outside a house. The search warrant covered the house, not the car. The trial judge had found that the car’s occupier handed over its keys and consented to the search. The appeal court agreed that evidence of her actions and words accompanying them was admissible to show consent, rather than hearsay offered to prove the truth of an assertion.
The court also rejected challenges to memoranda recording Bishop’s Garda interviews. The trial judge had heard allegations that Bishop was unfit to be questioned after being wounded, was induced to make admissions and was cold or humiliated after his clothes were removed. The appeal court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s findings that the interviews were not unfair or oppressive and that the statements were admissible.
The remaining grounds concerned the trial judge’s comments to the jury about whether Gardaí had planted evidence, the summary of the defence case, and evidence about events before the alleged conspiracy period. The appeal court said the comments about planted evidence addressed the issues in dispute, while the judge had separately explained the burden of proof and presumption of innocence. It found the defence case had been adequately summarised and said earlier evidence had been admitted as circumstantial evidence, not to establish a conspiracy before 1 October 2001.
The court refused leave to appeal against the conspiracy-to-rob conviction.