The High Court has rejected Michael O’Callaghan’s claims for damages over a robbery conviction that was later quashed and the time taken to hear his appeal.
Ms Justice Faherty delivered judgment on 14 March 2019. O’Callaghan had been convicted in Cork Circuit Court in February 2011 of offences arising from a robbery at a Cork City post office. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. In July 2013, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction, finding there was not enough evidence for a properly directed jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he, rather than another person connected to a balaclava found near the scene, had committed the offence. It did not order a retrial.
O’Callaghan argued that the trial judge should have directed an acquittal and that the State should compensate him for a miscarriage of justice. He also claimed that the time taken to hear his appeal breached his constitutional and Convention rights to an expeditious trial. A further claim sought damages under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
The High Court found that the statutory compensation scheme for miscarriage of justice required a newly discovered fact and a related certificate. O’Callaghan’s conviction had been quashed on appeal because the case should not have gone to the jury, rather than because of a newly discovered fact, so he did not qualify under that scheme. The judge also rejected his argument that a separate general damages action for miscarriage of justice was available in these circumstances. She held that disagreement by an appeal court with a trial judge’s ruling did not, by itself, establish a grave defect in the administration of justice. The court said the appeal process had corrected the conviction and rejected the miscarriage-of-justice damages claim.
On delay, the judgment focused on the period from the appeal’s entry into the Court of Criminal Appeal’s list for hearing dates in December 2011 to its hearing in April 2013. The court acknowledged the backlog and the delay, but found the appeal had been regularly reviewed and there was no discernible period of inactivity. It also took account of the fact that O’Callaghan did not apply for priority or bail. The judge concluded that the delay was not sufficiently egregious, unreasonable or culpable to establish a breach warranting damages.
The court held the 2003 Act claim was not properly constituted because the proceedings were brought against Ireland and the Attorney General, rather than an organ of the State as required by the Act. It also found no Convention breach on the miscarriage-of-justice or delay claims. The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims.