The Court of Appeal has quashed Kevin Coughlan’s murder conviction and substituted a conviction for manslaughter, finding that the way crucial pathology evidence was presented made his trial unsatisfactory in that respect.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 18 June 2015, the court remitted the case to the Central Criminal Court for sentence on manslaughter. It remanded Coughlan in custody for that purpose and said both sides would have a right of appeal in relation to the sentence.
Coughlan had been convicted of murder on 22 December 2011 after a 13-day trial in the Central Criminal Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that he had forced the deceased into a river, where the man drowned. The pathologist also gave an opinion that the deceased had been strangled before entering the river.
The appeal concerned the pathologist’s evidence. The court said the defence had received conclusions and analyses that had not been notified in advance, including material that was not in the pathologist’s report. The pathologist considered that supplying photographs of the deceased’s tongue injuries was sufficient, but the appeal court was not satisfied that it was sufficient in this case. It concluded that the presentation of the pathology evidence overall had left the trial unsatisfactory to that extent.
The court said the prosecution had dealt with the situation as best it could and praised the trial judge’s efforts to preserve fairness. It nevertheless considered the problem could not be remedied. It rejected leaving the murder conviction in place on the basis that there had been no miscarriage of justice, because the pathology evidence was too important in this trial. It also ruled out a retrial, saying at least some of the same issues would arise again.
The court said the jury could have found Coughlan guilty of manslaughter, a position conceded by his counsel. Using section 3(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993, it substituted that verdict for murder. It then used its general power to make orders necessary to do justice, together with its inherent jurisdiction, to have the Central Criminal Court impose the manslaughter sentence. That would preserve Coughlan’s opportunity to appeal the sentence; the Director of Public Prosecutions could also seek a review if it considered the sentence unduly lenient.
The appeal court did not itself impose a manslaughter sentence. The judgment records that sentencing would take place in the Central Criminal Court.