The Supreme Court has upheld the admission of a recorded emergency call made shortly after a fatal stabbing, ruling that the call was admissible as part of the events it described. The decision also set out an authoritative formulation of Ireland’s rule against hearsay.
The appeal was brought by Keith Connorton against the People at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The judgment addressed whether a call made by Ms McGrath, who witnessed the stabbing of Graham McKeever, could be admitted as evidence of what she described to the emergency operator.
At trial, Ms McGrath gave an account that differed in important respects from statements she had previously made to Gardaí and from her call. She said she had been confused by medication and drugs, had a poor memory, and could not clearly recall events. She also said the stabbing was in self-defence or accidental. During questioning, she accepted that she had made the call and, when taken through its contents, confirmed its statements, while also saying the account was not fully accurate.
The prosecution sought to have the call played to the jury. The trial judge, Hunt J., ruled it admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule, and the Court of Appeal agreed. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the call could be admitted to prove the truth of its contents despite being an out-of-court statement by a witness who testified at trial.
In the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Brian Murray, the Court held that an out-of-court statement tendered to prove the facts it asserts is generally inadmissible, subject to recognised common-law and statutory exceptions. It adopted the formulation in earlier authorities as the authoritative rule in Ireland, covering statements whether consistent or inconsistent with a witness’s testimony.
The Court concluded that the call fell within the res gestae exception. It was closely associated in time, place and circumstances with the stabbing, and there was no suggestion that Ms McGrath had a motive to concoct or distort her account when calling for help. The Court therefore found that the trial judge was correct to admit it.
The appeal judgment resolved the evidential issue before the Court. The source does not state the overall disposition of the appeal or any separate order concerning the conviction or sentence.