The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Stephen Carney leave to appeal his conviction for murder, rejecting his challenges to photographs of the deceased and answers he gave in Garda interviews.
In a judgment delivered on 4 July 2011, the court considered two of the three grounds in Carney’s application. His counsel had withdrawn the first ground at the hearing. The court’s decision concerned the admission of evidence at trial; it did not rehear the murder charge or alter the conviction or life sentence.
The photograph challenge concerned three images taken by a Garda at the apartment on the morning of 7 October 2007, after Carney had contacted Gardaí. One showed the deceased’s body beside the bed, covered by a blanket. Two close-ups showed her face and neck, including marks and discolouration. Carney argued that the images were prejudicial and unnecessary because he had accepted that her face turned blue. The prosecution said they helped explain the pathologist’s evidence and bore on whether Carney intended to kill or seriously harm her.
The appeal court distinguished the body-position photograph, which it said had some probative value and no significant prejudicial effect, from the two close-ups. It found those images probative of both the prosecution’s case on intent and the medical evidence about strangulation and the face’s colour. The court accepted they could prejudice Carney, but held that their prejudicial effect did not outweigh their probative value. It found the trial judge had exercised his discretion judicially and lawfully in admitting them.
The second challenge concerned four exchanges in an interview. Carney was asked whether his partner must have been terrified, whether she must have known he was killing her, and what he thought she was thinking. He answered that he did not know whether she was terrified, said she would have known he was killing her, and said he honestly did not know what she was thinking. The prosecution argued that the answers showed Carney’s perception of the consequences of his actions. The appeal court held that the questions addressed what Carney thought his partner understood, and were relevant to his own state of mind. Although prejudicial, the answers did not have a prejudicial effect that outweighed their probative value.
The court therefore refused leave to appeal on both grounds pursued. The conviction and mandatory life sentence remained in place.