The Supreme Court has ruled that James Flynn cannot be retried on the original, wider conspiracy-to-burgle charge after his conviction on a narrower version of that offence was quashed.
Ms Justice Isobel Donnelly held that the Court of Appeal exceeded its statutory power when it ordered Flynn to face a retrial on the conspiracy charge as it had originally appeared on the indictment. The Supreme Court has not, however, finally decided whether there will be a retrial. That question, limited to the amended charge on which Flynn was convicted, will return for a further hearing.
Flynn was tried before the Special Criminal Court in 2023 on charges of conspiracy to burgle and robbery. He was acquitted of robbery. During its reasoned verdict, the court found there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the conspiracy as originally alleged, which covered several properties between September 2012 and January 2013.
The trial court instead amended the indictment to a narrower allegation concerning one residential property in Clogherhead, Co Louth, on 22 and 23 January 2013, and convicted Flynn on that basis. The amendment was made without advance notice or submissions from the parties.
In March 2025, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction because that procedure breached Flynn's constitutional and natural justice rights. It later ordered a retrial on the original conspiracy charge.
The Supreme Court has now held that section 3(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 permits a retrial only for the offence of which the person was actually convicted, understood by reference to the particulars in the indictment. The Court of Appeal's decision to quash the conviction did not retrospectively erase the amendment made during the trial.
The Supreme Court therefore found there was no power to send Flynn back for trial on the broader original charge. Whether a retrial on the narrower amended indictment should proceed remains undecided.