The Court of Appeal has rejected all grounds of appeal by Waldemar Solowiow and upheld his murder conviction for the killing of Mary Ryan.
In a judgment delivered on 12 April 2016, the court considered claims that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury adequately on provocation, the significance of lies, the mental element of murder, a statutory presumption about the consequences of actions, and expert evidence.
Solowiow was convicted after an eight-day trial on 31 October 2013. The fact that he killed Ms Ryan was not disputed at trial; the issue was whether the appropriate verdict was murder or manslaughter. The judgment says he had offered a plea to manslaughter, which the Director of Public Prosecutions did not accept.
The appeal court found that the jury had been told to assess provocation subjectively, from Solowiow’s perspective, and had received a detailed review of the evidence relevant to his claim. It also found that the judge adequately explained how provocation related to the intent required for murder. The court noted that neither side had asked the trial judge to clarify the directions on these issues.
The court also rejected challenges to the directions on Solowiow’s admitted lies to gardaí. He initially said Ryan had been attacked by three men, then admitted during later interviews that he had killed her. The appeal judgment said the trial judge had told jurors that lies may be told for reasons other than guilt, and had referred to Solowiow’s explanation that he was afraid. The court said the lies could affect his credibility, but killing Ryan was not disputed by the time of trial.
On the statutory presumption that people intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions, the appeal court acknowledged that the trial judge had inadvertently said the presumption could not be rebutted. It held that his later explanation, given after questions from the jury, clearly corrected the mistake. The court said a more formal two-stage direction was not required in the circumstances.
The court further found that jurors had been told they could accept or reject expert evidence. It concluded that all the challenged directions were adequate and upheld the conviction. The appeal judgment does not impose a new sentence or describe any other order.