The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Warren Dumbrell and Jeffrey Dumbrell’s appeals against their convictions and life sentences for the murder of Christopher Cawley. In a judgment delivered on 4 July 2014, the court considered grounds concerning internet publicity, evidence about previous convictions, joint enterprise and the trial judge’s directions on witness credibility. It dismissed both appeals; the convictions and sentences therefore remained in place.
The brothers were convicted by a jury at the Central Criminal Court in February 2011, by a majority of 10 to 2, after a retrial. Their original convictions had been quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2010. The murder charge concerned Cawley’s death at Tyrone Place, Inchicore, Dublin 8, on 29 October 2006. The life sentences were ordered to run from 1 November 2006.
On the internet issue, Warren Dumbrell argued that prejudicial material available online made a fair trial impossible without new legal protections. The appeal court upheld an earlier refusal to stay the trial. It noted that the jury had been clearly directed to decide the case on courtroom evidence and not to make independent enquiries in the media. The judgment said there was nothing to suggest jurors disregarded that direction.
The court also rejected a challenge concerning the deceased’s previous convictions. The trial judge had not permitted the defence to introduce those convictions in the proposed way, while warning that attacks on the deceased’s character could lead to evidence of an accused’s convictions. During testimony, Jeffrey Dumbrell asserted that Cawley had 106 convictions for knife and firearms offences. The appeal judgment recorded that Cawley had two convictions for knife offences and described the broader assertion as a “bare faced lie”. Jeffrey’s own previous conviction was then introduced. The appeal court concluded that the handling of this evidence did not make either appellant’s trial unfair.
On joint enterprise, the appeal court said the trial judge had explained that responsibility depended on what the participants had agreed, which could be inferred from the evidence, and applied that principle to the prosecution and defence cases. The court said examples can help explain the doctrine, but further elaboration was not required in this case and the directions did not undermine the fairness of the trial or safety of the convictions.
The court also rejected Warren Dumbrell’s complaint about the summary of witness evidence, finding the judge’s directions fair. It declined to consider a separate challenge to the treatment of Jeffrey Dumbrell’s previous conviction because the point had not been raised at trial and no cogent explanation was given for that omission. The judgment observed that juries should, in principle, be told why such evidence is admitted and how they may use it, but issued no authoritative guidelines on the point.