The Court of Appeal has quashed David O’Loughlin’s murder conviction after finding that a jury’s visit to a rubbish chute during deliberations, and a stone-throwing experiment there, should not have been permitted. The court said it would later hear submissions on whether to order a retrial.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Mahon on 9 February 2018, addressed O’Loughlin’s appeal against his conviction for the murder of Liam Manley at Garden City Apartments in Cork on 12 May 2013. A jury found him guilty in March 2015, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed challenges concerning statements O’Loughlin made to gardaí without a caution, the refusal to direct the jury to acquit, and the trial judge’s directions on intent and unlawful killing. It concluded that the gardaí were conducting preliminary house-to-house enquiries when they spoke to him, and that he was not then a suspect requiring a caution. The court said the decision to admit the officers’ notes was correct, although the trial judge’s explanation for that decision should have been more detailed.
The appeal court also found that the evidence was properly left for the jury to assess when the trial judge refused the application for a direction. It said the jury had been fairly and sufficiently directed on the issues of intent and the possible verdicts.
The remaining ground concerned events after the jury began deliberating. The jury foreman asked to view the chute, and neither side objected. The trial judge permitted the visit. During it, a juror threw a stone down the chute to see how it travelled. O’Loughlin and his legal representatives were not present for the inspection; the experiment was disclosed to them after the jury returned to court.
The court said the visit was technically unlawful under section 22 of the Juries Act 1976 because no party had applied for it. It said the stone experiment was of greater concern: it was not evidence heard at trial, its purpose and result were unexplained, and a stone was materially different from an adult man being pushed head first into the chute. The court held that the jury should not have been allowed to conduct the experiment and that the jury should have been discharged in the circumstances.
It therefore allowed this ground of appeal, quashed the jury’s verdict and reserved the question of a retrial for further submissions. The judgment does not record a decision on whether a retrial would take place.