The Court of Appeal has dismissed Peter Jackson’s appeal against his conviction for murdering David Hamilton, finding no error in the trial judge’s directions to the jury and no basis to regard the verdict as unsafe.
Jackson was convicted after a seven-day trial in November 2015. He had pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter, leaving the jury to decide between the two verdicts. The appeal court’s judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Birmingham on 7 April 2017, rejected all grounds of appeal.
The court dismissed arguments that the trial judge’s comments about Garda interview notes undermined Jackson’s right to silence. The judge had told jurors the interviews were not given on oath or tested by cross-examination, and that they could give them considerable, little or no weight. She had also told the jury that Jackson’s decision not to give evidence could not be taken into account and that the prosecution retained the burden of proof. The appeal court said the judge was entitled to make the comments and had no obligation to recharge the jury on the issue.
It also rejected a challenge concerning the jury’s option to disagree. After the defence asked the judge to remind jurors they could disagree if unable to reach a verdict, she told them they could return a unanimous or majority verdict, or mark “disagree” on the issue paper. The jury later convicted Jackson by an 11-to-one majority. The court found no merit in the appeal ground, noting that the judge had granted the defence request.
The court also upheld the trial judge’s decision to leave the murder charge to the jury. Jackson argued there was insufficient evidence of an intention to kill or cause serious injury and challenged the directions on the statutory presumption concerning intent. The appeal judgment noted evidence from Pamela McHale and Jackson’s Garda interviews that he had not meant the stabbing to happen. It concluded that intent was for the jury to assess and that the judge’s directions on murder and the presumption were adequate.
A separate ground concerning provocation was not argued by Jackson’s counsel on appeal. The court said the issue had been properly dealt with at trial. It concluded that the trial was not unsatisfactory, the verdict was safe, and dismissed the appeal.