The Court of Appeal has dismissed Alan Ward’s appeal against his convictions for murdering his wife, threatening to kill and attempted assault. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh on 27 June 2024, concluded that none of the grounds of appeal succeeded.
Ward had been convicted after a jury trial. He accepted that he stabbed his wife, Catherine Ward, at their family home on 1 March 2019, and relied mainly on diminished responsibility. His defence argued in the alternative that intoxication may have prevented him forming the intent required for murder.
The appeal focused chiefly on whether psychiatrists should have been allowed to give opinions about how Ward’s acquired brain injury and intoxication interacted at the time of the killing. The prosecution psychiatrist considered intoxication the better explanation for Ward’s actions; the defence psychiatrist said both intoxication and mental disorder played a substantial role. The Court of Appeal held that the opinions were permissible and appropriate because they addressed the statutory defence, each expert gave reasons, and the jury was told that deciding the issue was its responsibility.
The court also rejected a challenge to prosecution closing remarks about Ward’s account of violence in his childhood. The judgment noted that no direct testimony on that childhood experience was before the jury. Defence counsel had argued that the prosecution could have investigated further, and the appeal court found that the trial judge was not required to draw the jury’s attention to that point.
On intoxication and intent, the court said the trial judge’s direction on the law was correct. It might have been preferable for the judge to mention the experts’ agreement that Ward could be more affected by alcohol because of his brain injury, but the omission did not make the trial unfair. Defence counsel had referred to the evidence in closing.
The appeal court also upheld the trial judge’s decision to prevent a detective from interpreting what Ward meant when he said “it’s not me” in interview. That meaning was for the jury to assess. It further found no error in the prosecution’s decision not to call two neighbours whose statements described the couple as friendly. Their observations were limited to seeing them on the street or in the garden, and the defence did not pursue their attendance after the trial judge ruled.
The judgment dismissed the appeal in full. It did not alter the jury’s convictions.