The Court of Appeal has dismissed Leon Sharlott’s appeal against his conviction for possessing firearms and ammunition, ruling that a custody photograph and a Garda witness’s brief comment about an ear defect did not make his trial unfair.
Sharlott was convicted on 19 October 2022 of possessing a Glock pistol, a .38-inch Webley & Scott revolver, 12 rounds of 9mm ammunition and six rounds of .38 ammunition, contrary to firearms legislation.
The case arose after Gardaí went to a council yard outside Gorey, Co Wexford, shortly after 1am on 15 March 2018. Three men fled. In a Volkswagen Golf at the yard, officers found the firearms and ammunition, along with Nike runners in the boot. DNA on the runners matched Sharlott, who later accepted in interview that they were his but denied being at the scene.
Gloves also found in the Golf had been bought the previous day at Lenehan’s hardware shop on Capel Street, Dublin. Shop CCTV showed two men buying them. The prosecution argued that one was a co-accused and the other was Sharlott. The appeal focused on a custody photograph showing a deformity in Sharlott’s left ear and a Garda witness’s comment, while the footage was played to the jury, that a man in it had a “very distinguishing feature” on his ear.
The prosecution also relied on evidence that a man with part of an ear missing and a metal bar in it sought a lift near Gorey at about 6.30am and was driven to the Applegreen station at Coyne’s Cross. Another witness said he then drove a man from the station to the Ballyogan Luas stop. The Court of Appeal noted that the first driver did not say which ear had the defect and that the second witness described the man by general appearance.
Sharlott argued that admitting the photograph and the Garda’s commentary created unfair identification evidence, and that the trial judge should have discharged the jury. The prosecution said the jury could assess the CCTV for themselves and that the case was based on circumstantial evidence.
The court said the photograph was admissible and the CCTV was another piece of circumstantial evidence for the jury to consider alongside the other evidence. It accepted that the ear evidence was important to the prosecution, and said it would have been preferable for the Garda not to make the comment. But the footage and witness evidence were already before the jury for its assessment, and the comment did not reach the level of prejudice that required the jury to be discharged.
The court also noted that the appeal ground concerning the absence of a direct warning to the jury was not pursued and that no requisition was raised after the trial judge’s charge. It dismissed the appeal against conviction.