The Court of Appeal has dismissed Graham Corbally’s appeal against his conviction on three firearm-related counts, ruling that the trial judge was entitled to admit DNA evidence despite gaps in the handling records and the absence of the original evidence bag.
Corbally was convicted on 22 October 2019 of possessing a firearm in suspicious circumstances, possessing ammunition in suspicious circumstances, and possessing a firearm without a firearms certificate. The appeal concerned the chain of evidence for a buccal swab taken from him in January 2017. Forensic Science Ireland reported that DNA profiles from a shotgun and the inside of a latex glove matched his profile.
The defence argued that the bag identified as BG1, said to contain the swab kit, was not produced at trial. The bag before the court was empty and did not bear the BG1 marking. The defence also said Garda Brian Geraghty, who took the sample, should have been recalled to identify the FTA card used to generate the DNA sample.
The trial judge admitted the evidence, finding beyond reasonable doubt that the copy of the FTA card examined by the forensic scientist related to the sample taken from Corbally. The Court of Appeal reviewed evidence that the exhibits officer transferred BG1 to Forensic Science Ireland, where an executive officer received the bag and passed the FTA card directly to the scientist. The card’s details, including Corbally’s information, the sampling date and the laboratory identification number, corresponded with witness evidence.
The appeal court acknowledged that Geraghty did not testify that he completed the FTA card and that the original bag was missing. It said it would have been prudent to identify expressly who transferred the sample onto the card. But it found no break in the chain of evidence: the card was included in the kit sent to the laboratory, and the missing bag did not undermine the sample’s integrity. The court said the jury could assess the concerns about the card and bag when deciding whether the required standard of proof had been met.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in admitting the evidence and dismissed the appeal. Its ruling addressed the DNA evidence and the trial judge’s decision to admit it; it did not order a retrial or alter the convictions.