Judgment: 2007-07-25 · Court archive

Court refuses five men leave to appeal convictions over Limerick murder

The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected challenges to the convictions, including arguments about disclosure, publicity, jury directions and the prosecution’s principal witness.

Court of Criminal Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Anthony McCarthy
  • Christopher Costello
  • David Stanners
  • James McCarthy
  • Desmond Dundon (Applicant)
  • Kieran Keane
  • Owen Treacy
What

The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected challenges to the convictions, including arguments about disclosure, publicity, jury directions and the prosecution’s principal witness.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Drombanna
  • Limerick
  • Cloverhill
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

On appeal, the men argued that the prosecution had not disclosed material concerning investigations in which Treacy had been suspected or arrested. The court accepted that more detailed material, including material relating to the murder of Eddie Ryan, had not been disclosed before trial. It held that the omission did not make the convictions unsafe in this case. The later material was limited in its value for challenging Treacy’s credibility, the defence already knew of his associations and convictions, and no application for further disclosure or a ruling had been made during the trial despite notice that material was being withheld.

The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused five men leave to appeal their convictions for the murder of Kieran Keane, the attempted murder of Owen Treacy and the false imprisonment of both men.

The decision followed a trial at the Central Criminal Court, sitting at Cloverhill Courthouse, which ran from November to December 2003. The applicants were Anthony McCarthy, Christopher Costello, David Stanners, James McCarthy and Desmond Dundon. The appeal court’s judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kearns on 25 July 2007, dismissed the grounds advanced and refused leave to appeal on all grounds.

The convictions arose from events on 29 January 2003. The court’s account of the trial evidence was that Keane and Treacy were abducted and detained at addresses in Limerick before being driven to a country lane at Drombanna. Keane was shot dead and Treacy was stabbed repeatedly and left at the scene. Treacy was the principal prosecution witness; the applicants denied or disputed his account in interviews, and none gave evidence at trial.

On appeal, the men argued that the prosecution had not disclosed material concerning investigations in which Treacy had been suspected or arrested. The court accepted that more detailed material, including material relating to the murder of Eddie Ryan, had not been disclosed before trial. It held that the omission did not make the convictions unsafe in this case. The later material was limited in its value for challenging Treacy’s credibility, the defence already knew of his associations and convictions, and no application for further disclosure or a ruling had been made during the trial despite notice that material was being withheld.

The court also rejected challenges concerning adverse publicity, the absence of a defence witness, joint trials, inconsistencies in Treacy’s accounts, identification evidence, alibi directions, jury selection and the trial judge’s conduct. It found that repeated judicial warnings were sufficient to address publicity and that the jury had been directed to assess Treacy’s evidence and each defendant’s case separately.

The applicants further argued that Treacy might have been an accomplice in Keane’s murder and that the jury should have received an accomplice warning. The court held there was not sufficient evidence to leave that theory to the jury. It also rejected claims that shortcomings in the Garda investigation made the trial unfair.

The order was limited to refusing leave to appeal on the grounds advanced. The judgment did not conduct a new trial or make new findings of guilt; it left the trial convictions undisturbed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review