The Supreme Court has dismissed Maurice Power’s appeal against his conviction for murdering Shane Rossiter, rejecting challenges to the lawfulness of his extended detention and the trial judge’s direction to the jury about his confession.
Power was convicted of murder after evidence was given that he admitted shooting Rossiter during Garda interviews in December 2012. The trial judge ruled that his detention had been lawfully extended by a District Court warrant and instructed the jury to consider whether other evidence independently confirmed the truth and reliability of the confession.
The appeal concerned whether the trial judge could assess the detention’s legality during the criminal trial, and how section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 applies when confession evidence is not corroborated. The Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal had been wrong to suggest that the detention warrant could only be challenged through judicial review. A trial judge may assess the legality of investigatory steps when deciding whether evidence gathered through them should be admitted. That assessment does not quash the warrant or decide its validity for other proceedings.
On the facts, however, the Court found no basis to overturn the trial judge’s conclusion that the detention was lawful. The District Court had received substantial information about the investigation and the need for further questioning. Although the chief superintendent who applied for the extension had not been told that Power had begun making admissions, the Court noted that the information was known to both Gardaí collectively and Power, and neither had raised it at the hearing. The Court said evidence that Gardaí had misled the District Court or withheld material information from both the court and the suspect could affect the admissibility of evidence, but found no evidence of that here.
The Court also upheld the jury direction on corroboration. It said section 10 does not require a warning in every trial where a confession is introduced. The trial judge must assess whether the confession is uncorroborated for the purpose of deciding whether to give the jury the statutory advice. Corroboration means relevant, independent evidence that tends to implicate the accused; it may include circumstantial evidence.
The jury had heard evidence linking Power to a black Audi A4, including evidence about the burned-out car and an apparent attempt to create a false account of its sale. The trial judge told jurors to consider whether that evidence confirmed the confession, while making clear they could convict without corroboration if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was true. The Supreme Court held that direction was appropriate. It dismissed the appeal and said it was unnecessary to consider the statutory proviso concerning dismissal of an appeal despite a finding in the appellant’s favour.