The Court of Criminal Appeal has set aside Jason Murphy’s convictions for manslaughter and arson and ordered a retrial, finding that the trial was unsatisfactory. It did not determine whether Murphy committed the offences, and the other appeal grounds were not considered.
Murphy was convicted in March 2010 of the manslaughter of Anne-Marie O’Neill and arson of her Toyota Yaris and the house at 202 Elm Park, Clonmel. The offences related to a fire on 27 April 2007. He received concurrent prison sentences of 15, 12 and seven years. The appeal judgment was delivered by McKechnie J. on 18 January 2013.
The prosecution case relied on statements from three witnesses alleging that Murphy had said he lit the fire. At trial, the witnesses said Gardaí had threatened or pressured them into making those statements. After a hearing on whether the statements could be admitted under section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, the trial judge ruled they were voluntary and reliable. The Court of Criminal Appeal said it could not overturn that ruling because it depended on the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility, though it noted the ruling gave little explanation of how the conflicting evidence was resolved.
The appeal court found serious problems with the directions the jury received. The trial judge’s explanation of corroboration did not adequately tell jurors that corroborating evidence must be independent and connect the accused to the offence. The jury was also not clearly told that, apart from the three statements, there was no other evidence capable of corroborating them.
The court also held that the directions on the statements blurred the judge’s role in deciding admissibility with the jury’s role in deciding what weight to give admitted evidence. Jurors should have been guided to assess the conflicting statements and testimony, the circumstances in which the statements were made, and the witnesses’ explanations for later contradicting them. The appeal court concluded that these shortcomings went to the heart of the conviction.
A solicitor’s evidence, heard after the admissibility ruling, added to the court’s concerns. Her records described the two principal witnesses reporting alleged threats and saying their statements were false. The court said this evidence, if accepted, was consistent with their allegations and could have affected the admissibility decision. It found that its absence from the earlier hearing also rendered the trial unsatisfactory.
The court set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial. It did not decide the remaining appeal submissions, including those concerning the jury, the legal directions on the offences, or sentence.