The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gavin Tierney’s appeal against his conviction for criminal damage, ruling that the trial judge was entitled to admit a typed memorandum of his garda interview and that the challenges to his arrest and a search warrant did not succeed.
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Mahon on 23 February 2018. Mr Justice Edwards and Mr Justice Hedigan also sat on the appeal. The court rejected all grounds raised by Tierney and did not disturb the conviction or sentence.
Tierney had pleaded not guilty at Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court to two counts of making an unwarranted demand with menaces and one count of criminal damage. He was acquitted on the first count by direction of the trial judge and on the second by a unanimous jury. The jury found him guilty of criminal damage, and on 10 October 2016 he received a three-month prison sentence, suspended in full on conditions. His appeal concerned only that conviction.
The charges arose from alleged visits to Martin O’Brien’s home at Five Oakes Village, Drogheda, on 16 and 23 May 2013. The prosecution alleged that Tierney sought repayment of a €15,000 debt said to be owed by O’Brien’s son. It further alleged that during the second visit Tierney broke a pane of glass in the front door. The appeal judgment records those allegations; it does not reconsider the trial evidence on the underlying incident.
Tierney argued that the search of his home under a warrant was unlawful and that his arrest and detention breached his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the warrant was properly authorised. It noted evidence that the District Court judge had considered the information supporting the warrant and that there was no indication the application had simply been approved without scrutiny.
The arresting garda relied on a statutory arrest power that did not apply. However, the officer had another available power to arrest without a warrant on reasonable cause to suspect an arrestable offence. The appeal court found no evidence of bad faith, recklessness or gross negligence in the error. It upheld the trial judge’s decision to admit the interview evidence, which had been gathered while Tierney was in custody.
The original handwritten interview memorandum went missing during the trial. The typed version remained available, as did a video recording; the defence had seen the original before it went missing. The appeal court agreed with the trial judge that the loss was unsatisfactory but caused no unfairness or prejudice in the circumstances. It dismissed that ground and the appeal in full.