A Court of Criminal Appeal judge said there was no stateable case in Martin Murray’s application to quash his conviction, but referred the matter to the full court for a final determination.
In an interim judgment delivered on 11 April 2005, Mr Justice Geoghegan said he would not make a final and absolute decision on the application. He said the full court could make that determination after considering his report on the factual background.
Murray was convicted by a judge and jury at Naas Circuit Court on 11 February 1999 of possessing a large quantity of drugs for distribution. He received a seven-year prison sentence, which he served. His appeal was dismissed on 16 May 2001.
The application was brought under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993, which allows a convicted person to seek to have a conviction quashed on the basis of an alleged new or newly discovered fact showing a miscarriage of justice.
Murray’s lawyers argued that the original trial had been inadequately prepared. They said trial counsel had been briefed only on the evening before the hearing, and alleged there had been no proper preparation, timely consultations or formal advice on proofs. They also alleged that solicitors had failed to address gaps in the case and had left Murray without a legal team shortly before the trial.
The judge noted that the application did not allege that senior counsel had been incompetent in conducting the trial. He said there was no fixed legal requirement for written advice on proofs or consultations at particular stages; the central question was whether the trial had been conducted with reasonable care and competence.
Murray’s affidavit also complained that witnesses he wanted were not called and that a mapper did not attend. The judge said Murray already knew those matters at the time of his original appeal, so they could not be treated as newly discovered facts. He also said the application did not explain how the witnesses or mapper would have helped the defence.
The judge said no evidence had been produced that the alleged shortcomings had caused negative consequences. An absence of advice on proofs could be relevant if there were an arguable case that the defence was conducted badly as a result, he said, but no such evidence had been provided.
He concluded that the application was not stateable and, in his view, ought to be struck out by the court. That was his interim view; the judgment referred the matter to the full court for the final decision.