The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Ronald McManus leave to appeal his manslaughter conviction, finding no basis to disturb the trial judge’s decisions on the grounds advanced.
McManus had been charged with murdering 14-year-old Melissa Mahon, whose death was alleged to have occurred at premises in Sligo between 14 and 30 September 2006. A jury acquitted him of murder but convicted him of manslaughter after a trial in April and May 2009. The trial judge imposed a life sentence. The appeal judgment says the application before the court concerned leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, but that any sentence appeal would be dealt with, if necessary, after the conviction application.
The prosecution case included evidence from McManus’s daughters, Samantha and Heidi, who testified by video link. They described finding their father with Mahon, her later being placed in a sleeping bag, and the bag being taken by car to the River Bonet. The court acknowledged discrepancies between their accounts, as well as inconsistencies within each account. But it found that key elements were substantially alike and said the witnesses’ credibility and reliability were matters for the jury. It held that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, was sufficient to leave the case to the jury, and refused the related grounds for leave.
The court also rejected a challenge over the jury’s request to review part of Samantha’s evidence. A technical fault meant the particular segment had not been recorded. The jury received a transcript of the evidence, and the court found that this was adequate in the circumstances.
Samantha was over 18 when she testified. The court said the trial judge had discretion under section 13 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 to permit an adult witness to give evidence by live video link. It upheld that decision, citing evidence of her vulnerability and concerns about testifying against her father, and noted that the defence had cross-examined her at length.
The court declined to entertain the applicant’s claim that media coverage had denied him a fair trial because no supporting material had been presented. It also refused grounds alleging judicial bias and an unfair jury charge, noting that objections had not been raised at trial and finding no basis to conclude the defence case had been inadequately or unfairly presented. The trial judge had recharged the jury to exercise caution when selecting parts of the two witnesses’ conflicting evidence.
The court refused leave to appeal against conviction. It did not decide a separate appeal against sentence in the outcome stated in the judgment.