The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Liam Bolger leave to appeal his conviction for the murder of Christopher Barry, finding no trial error or fundamental injustice that warranted intervention.
Bolger was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 17 November 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment, backdated to 13 September 2008. The charge concerned the shooting of Barry at Byrne’s Bookmakers on Killester Avenue, Dublin, on 13 September 2008. The prosecution case was that Bolger acted as the getaway driver in a joint enterprise with the gunman.
The appeal court, in a judgment delivered on 14 March 2013, rejected challenges concerning Bolger’s arrest, the admission of interview evidence and the trial judge’s refusal to direct an acquittal at the end of the prosecution case. It also upheld the admission of CCTV evidence, saying it was for the jury to decide whether footage showed the van in question.
The court accepted that Bolger had been unlawfully detained for about an hour before his arrest. It nevertheless found the arrest valid: it was based on reasonable suspicion independent of that detention, and there had been no earlier arrest requiring a release before the later arrest.
Bolger also sought to rely on the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Damache, which found the statutory power used to issue the search warrant unconstitutional. Police had searched his home under that provision and found a hatchet and mobile phones. The appeal court allowed him to argue the point because his appeal was still pending, but noted that the warrant issue had not been raised at trial.
The court said an appeal generally reviews issues raised and decided during the trial. It may permit a new point in exceptional circumstances, where a substantial error and an explanation for not raising it show a possible real injustice. Having considered the search evidence alongside the other grounds, the court found no fundamental injustice or reasonably explained substantial error.
On interview evidence, the appeal court concluded that Bolger had consulted his solicitor, had the relevant legal provisions explained to him and indicated that he understood them. It found no error in the trial judge’s decision to admit the interview so the jury could consider inferences from his silence. The court refused leave to appeal.