The Court of Appeal has dismissed Laurence Carthy’s appeal against his conviction for assault causing harm, upholding the conviction entered in Naas Circuit Court in 2017. The appeal concerned whether the evidence was sufficient to leave to the jury, alleged failures in the Garda investigation and references to a safety care plan during the trial.
Carthy was convicted on 26 October 2017 of assault causing harm under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. He was sentenced on 2 July 2018 to three years’ imprisonment, with 18 months suspended. The appeal was against conviction.
The complainant, his former wife, told the trial that she woke during the night of 5 May 2016 to find someone covering her face and pushing her from the bed. She said she recognised Carthy by his breathing and voice, including after asking, “Is that you, Lar, really?” and hearing the reply, “It’s just because I miss you so much.” These were her accounts at trial, not findings independently established in the appeal judgment.
Carthy argued that the voice identification was weak and that investigative gaps—including the absence of forensic testing and photographs, and the decision not to interview him—left the defence unable to test the evidence adequately. The prosecution submitted that the complainant’s 17-year familiarity with his voice, the circumstances of the encounter and extensive cross-examination supported leaving the issue to the jury.
The appeal court found the voice recognition evidence to be of good quality and suitable for jury consideration. It said the complainant’s long familiarity with Carthy, the assailant’s proximity and breathing, and his response to her question were relevant circumstances. The court also held that the defence had not shown how the alleged investigative failures would have affected the reliability of that identification. It concluded that the trial judge applied the correct test when refusing to withdraw the case or stop the trial, and was entitled to refuse an adjournment sought to present further evidence on unfairness.
The jury had also asked about references to a “safety care plan” for the children. The trial judge directed them to disregard those references. The appeal court found that the evidence did not cause prejudice sufficient to justify discharging the jury and saw no reason to think the jury would ignore the direction.
One appeal ground concerning alleged hearsay identification was not pursued. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction.