The Court of Appeal has quashed Leslie Peacock’s conviction for failing to ensure fire safety at Kennedy Plaza Apartments in New Ross and remitted the case for a retrial. It found the jury may not have properly understood how to assess whether he had taken reasonably practicable steps to ensure safety.
The court rejected Peacock’s two grounds of appeal: that the trial judge should have directed an acquittal, and that the prosecution should not have been allowed to amend the indictment to describe him as the owner as well as a person having control of the premises. It concluded there was sufficient evidence of control for the case to go to the jury, and no risk the amendment had misled them about the offence.
Peacock had been convicted in Wexford Circuit Criminal Court on 28 January 2015 under the Fire Services Act 1981. The charge concerned a fire at the apartment complex on 20 January 2012. The judgment said the building had 24 apartments and 32 residents at the time. Peacock was sentenced in June 2015 to a €50,000 fine, payable in monthly instalments, with imprisonment in default of payment. The appeal judgment addressed the conviction only.
The Court of Appeal said the trial judge had described the offence as one of strict liability and told the jury that Peacock’s knowledge was irrelevant. The statutory duty, however, required a person in control to ensure safety “as far as is reasonably practicable”. The court said the prosecution had to prove that the accused was in control, that safety had in fact not been ensured, and that the accused had failed to take reasonably practicable steps. It characterised that final element as negligence-based, rather than an absolute duty.
Knowledge was not a required element of the offence, the court said, but what Peacock knew—or did not know—could be relevant to whether he had taken reasonably practicable steps. Relevant questions included whether he knew the alarm was frequently triggered, whether he acted in response, and whether he knew it had been disabled the night before the fire.
The judgment recounted evidence that a resident contacted caretaker Tomasz Gorski after the alarm sounded for about 30 minutes shortly after midnight. The resident was instructed to disconnect the alarm; it remained disabled when the fire was noticed at about 4.20pm. The court said the jury should have considered the appellant’s knowledge of these matters as part of the wider assessment, while making clear it was not the sole issue.
Although the court rejected the two argued grounds, it quashed the conviction because it was concerned the jury may not have understood the offence’s ingredients or how the prosecution could prove them. It ordered a retrial. The judgment does not report the result of any retrial.