The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Noel Price and Michael Stanners leave to appeal their convictions arising from a petrol bomb attack on a home in Clonlara, Co Clare, on 17 May 2001. Both had been sentenced to 12 years in prison for arson.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McCracken on 30 July 2004, said six people were in the house at the time. Three gave evidence, but none identified Price or Stanners. The court said the evidence identifying them came from statements they later made to gardaí.
The applicants argued that the prosecution should have called or offered Norma Treacy for cross-examination, or taken statements from her and included them in the Book of Evidence. Norma had not testified. Her sister Ashling told the jury that Norma had shouted one alleged assailant’s name after the attack, and was questioned about an earlier statement in which she was said to have named two other people.
The appeal court concluded that the applicants had Ashling’s account and used it to question her. They had not sought a jury discharge on the ground that Norma was absent, and relied on Ashling’s evidence in their closing arguments. The court found the prosecution was not at fault for failing to call Norma or take a statement from her. It said the prosecutor should not have commented on Norma’s reliability, but found that the trial judge’s directions dealt with any possible prejudice.
The applicants also challenged remarks by the trial judge about the jury’s rights and the direction on reasonable doubt. The appeal court said the judge had explained the presumption of innocence and the benefit of doubt, and that the jury was properly directed. It found there was ample evidence, particularly the applicants’ statements, to support the verdicts.
During the trial, a juror reported an allegation that Price had approached her at traffic lights on O’Connell Street in Limerick after court, blown cigarette smoke towards her and waved. Price’s counsel said he denied the incident and that it could be mistaken identity. The trial judge declined to discharge the jury. He later instructed jurors not to let the encounter influence them and to consider only the trial evidence.
The appeal court held that the direction addressed the risk of bias and rejected the appeal grounds. It refused leave to appeal against conviction to both applicants; the judgment does not order a retrial.