The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Edward Daly leave to appeal his manslaughter conviction over the death of Patrick Ryan, who died after an assault in Waterford in July 2005.
Daly had pleaded guilty to assault causing harm and not guilty to manslaughter at his second trial. A jury found him guilty of manslaughter on 4 April 2008. He sought leave to appeal that conviction on four grounds. The court’s judgment, delivered on 29 July 2009, refused leave on all grounds.
The first trial ended after the jury was discharged because a prosecution witness, Dr Odeh-Odeh, was unavailable. Before the second trial, the prosecution served additional medical evidence. Daly argued that after the first trial he had disclosed the defence position that medication caused Ryan’s collapse and death, and that allowing the prosecution to add evidence was unfair.
The court distinguished the circumstances from an earlier case in which the prosecution had abandoned and restarted proceedings after an adverse indication from a trial judge. It found no suggestion that the first trial collapsed through a deliberate act or stratagem by the prosecution. The court said that the possibility for either side to adjust its case at a retrial had not been a ground to prohibit a retrial. Daly’s challenge on this point failed.
Daly also argued that the evidence was insufficient to leave the case with the jury, both at the close of the prosecution case and after all evidence had been heard. The defence had presented expert medical testimony, which conflicted with the prosecution evidence. The appeal court said resolving that conflict was the jury’s role and concluded there was evidence on which a properly directed jury could find that the assault contributed to Ryan’s death in more than a minimal way. Both challenges failed.
The final ground concerned the trial judge’s directions on causation. The judge told the jury the assault had to contribute to Ryan’s death in a “substantial or significant or meaningful way”, while explaining that it need not be the sole or immediate cause. The appeal court held that the direction correctly stated the law and that adding “significant” or “meaningful” did not weaken the requirement for a substantial contribution. It refused leave to appeal on that ground as well.
The ruling addressed whether Daly could appeal his conviction; it did not set aside the jury’s verdict. Leave to appeal was refused.