The Court of Criminal Appeal refused William Roche’s application for leave to appeal his convictions for murdering and falsely imprisoning John Carroll. In a judgment delivered on 28 July 2004, the court rejected all four grounds raised by Roche. It did not overturn the convictions.
Roche argued that the trial judge should have adjourned the trial because neck pain and flu symptoms left him unable to think clearly. The appeal court found no error in the judge’s handling of the issue. The trial had been adjourned earlier and, when Roche complained during cross-examination, the judge adjourned until the following morning. Roche said he felt somewhat better when proceedings resumed, and there was no further application to adjourn. The appeal court concluded that the trial was not unfair on this ground.
The court also rejected Roche’s challenge to the admission of four statements he made to gardaí. At a trial within a trial, the trial judge had found the statements voluntary after hearing evidence from Garda officers and Roche. Roche alleged that officers had oppressed him and deceived him about documents he signed. The appeal court said the trial judge had carefully considered those claims and was entitled to accept the officers’ evidence. It found that the disputed inaccuracy in an addendum to one statement did not show that the statement had been obtained through oppression.
On common enterprise, Roche argued the jury should have been told that a participant was not responsible if another went beyond the shared plan. The appeal court held that the charge was correct in law. It said the jury could convict if it accepted Roche’s statements describing his participation in serious assaults and his assistance in getting Carroll out of the car before Michael Sage struck him with a ratchet. On that account, the court said, Roche’s role went beyond being responsible only through a common enterprise.
Finally, Roche argued the jury had not received an adequate warning about the lack of corroboration for his statements. The appeal court said the judge had directed the jury under section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 and that no particular form of words was required. Given the evidence in the case, it found no further warning was necessary. The application for leave to appeal was refused.