The Supreme Court has allowed Alan Wilson’s appeal and quashed his burglary conviction, ruling that evidence of his silence during questioning about a firearms offence could not be used against him at his burglary trial.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice William M. McKechnie on 13 July 2017, the Court answered a certified question about section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. It held that the provision’s adverse inference rules may be relied on at trial only where the offence charged is the same offence about which the accused was questioned when the section was invoked.
Wilson was arrested in June 2009 on suspicion of involvement in the unlawful discharge of a firearm at a house in Blanchardstown, Dublin 15. The next day, gardaí invoked section 19 during an interview and asked him to account for his presence at several locations, stating that they believed it related to the firearm offence. Wilson said he had nothing to say, then added that gardaí had stopped him on a road in Blanchardstown.
He was later charged with burglary, not a firearms offence. At his trial, the prosecution introduced the interview memorandum so the jury could draw adverse inferences from his failure to answer. Wilson objected, arguing that the interview concerned a different offence. The trial judge admitted the evidence, and Wilson was convicted and sentenced to seven years. The Court of Appeal dismissed his challenge to the use of the interview evidence but later reduced his sentence by one year.
The Supreme Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that burglary and the firearms offence were so closely connected that the interview evidence could be used for both. The judgment said the interview made no reference to Wilson’s involvement in burglary, and he was not told that his silence could have consequences at a burglary trial. The Court also distinguished an earlier case in which the accused had been questioned about the murder for which he was later prosecuted.
The ruling concerned the use of the section 19 inferences in Wilson’s trial. The Court concluded that they could not be used there because he had been questioned about a different offence, and quashed his burglary conviction. The source does not state whether any further proceedings followed.