The Court of Appeal has confirmed it rejects Nathan Killeen’s appeal grounds concerning search warrants, a DNA swab and alleged non-disclosure, in an addendum to its judgment dismissing his murder conviction appeal.
The addendum, delivered by Mr Justice Birmingham on 10 May 2018, followed a motion brought by Killeen on 12 January 2018. He argued that the earlier reserved judgment was based on a mistaken premise that no oral argument had been made on two grounds. He asked the court to set aside the dismissal and rehear the appeal before a differently constituted court, or alternatively to issue an amended judgment addressing the search warrant and swab issues.
The court said the appeal hearing had lasted three days and that it had access to both the hearing and its transcript. While Killeen’s counsel had said oral submissions would focus mainly on other topics, counsel also stood over the written submissions on the remaining grounds. The court said it had full regard to all oral and written arguments and confirmed its rejection of three grounds: those concerning the warrants, the swab and alleged non-disclosure. The non-disclosure issue was not included in Killeen’s motion.
On the warrants, the court addressed the defence complaint that warrants covered numerous properties beyond Nos. 5 and 7 Crecora Avenue, the two properties described as being of primary interest. The Special Criminal Court had ruled on the issue on 28 May 2014. The Court of Appeal said the Garda response to the developing situation was appropriate, found no misconduct that could justify excluding evidence, and rejected the challenge.
The swab ground concerned a sample obtained during an unrelated investigation after a sample from the Collins murder investigation had been excluded by the trial court. The prosecution’s entitlement to use the other sample had been litigated before the Special Criminal Court, which ruled on it on 25 June 2015. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s conclusions about the taking of the sample, the circumstances in which Killeen entered a Garda car, the procedures and caution, and a reference in the consent form to a regulation.
On records, the court said the complaint was about failures to maintain or create records, rather than withholding existing documents. It said the context involving Gardaí, gang members and members of the Collins family had been explored at trial. The defence could ask the court to consider record-keeping criticisms when assessing evidence, but those criticisms did not undermine the trial’s fairness or the safety of its result.
The addendum did not reopen the appeal or order a rehearing. It confirmed the court’s rejection of Killeen’s appeal after consideration of the arguments.