The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Morgan’s appeal against his conviction for the murder of Lukasz Rzeszutko, finding no basis to overturn the trial judge’s decisions on a search warrant, evidence about statements made in Morgan’s presence, or the jury’s directions on joint enterprise.
The judgment, delivered on 9 March 2015, records that a jury convicted Morgan by a 10:2 majority on 15 March 2012. He received the mandatory life sentence, backdated to the date of conviction. The appeal court considered the three grounds properly before it and refused an application to expand them.
One ground concerned a warrant used to search the home of Morgan’s mother, where Morgan also lived. Gardaí seized clothing and footwear later found to contain the victim’s blood. Morgan argued that the warrant was invalid because it did not expressly identify an arrestable offence. The court held that the omission did not automatically invalidate the warrant. It found that the warrant’s reference to blood-stained clothing, together with the circumstances and evidence about what the occupants understood, provided a basis to infer that the search concerned suspected assault causing harm, an arrestable offence. The court said the trial judge was right to allow the search evidence before the jury. It did not decide whether the omission would invalidate a warrant where no such inference could be drawn.
Morgan also challenged evidence from Angela Whelan about a conversation at a wall after the assault. She testified that Stephen Byrne said the victim had been kicked, and that Morgan said he had stood on the victim’s head. The appeal court found that the challenged evidence was used as original evidence of Morgan’s conduct and apparent acceptance of the accusation, rather than to prove the truth of Byrne’s words. It also noted that the defence could have cross-examined Whelan. The court rejected this ground.
The final ground argued that the jury could have been confused after the case began as an alleged joint enterprise and the prosecution later proceeded against Morgan alone. Two co-accused had pleaded guilty to manslaughter; those pleas were accepted by the prosecution. The appeal court found that the trial judge clearly told jurors that joint enterprise no longer applied and that they must decide Morgan’s guilt on his own involvement.
The court dismissed the appeal. It also refused leave to add further grounds, noting that no cogent explanation had been given for not raising them at trial and that the required procedure had not been followed.