The Court of Appeal has dismissed John McCarthy’s appeal against convictions for possessing diamorphine and possessing diamorphine worth at least €13,000.
McCarthy was convicted at Limerick Circuit Criminal Court on 22 May 2012 after an eight-day trial. The offences were recorded as having occurred on 15 October 2010. He received concurrent 14-year prison sentences. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Alan Mahon on 13 July 2015, addressed the convictions appeal only, not the appeal against sentence.
Three grounds were pursued. The first concerned Garda phone records. The trial court had ordered disclosure of records for six Gardaí covering part of 15 October 2010. The appeal argued that the order had not been properly enforced and that the defence should have received original records for expert examination. The Court of Appeal said the call times had been disclosed, while other information was withheld on privilege grounds in the interest of Garda security. It held that the disclosure order had been generally complied with and that withholding the additional information was permissible and not unfair.
The second ground challenged the warnings given to jurors about discussing the case with outsiders and seeking information online. The Court noted that the trial judge warned the jury against discussing the case with anyone outside the jury and directed them to decide it on the evidence. No specific warning about internet or social media searches was given. The court said such a warning was not essential in every trial and that, in Ireland, its necessity depended on the circumstances. It found the warnings sufficient and dismissed this ground. The judgment records that no claim was made that a juror had searched online.
The third ground concerned the trial judge’s directions on Garda identification evidence. Three Gardaí said they recognised McCarthy among three men seen crossing an open field known as “The Four Walls”. One said he saw him for a split second from about 20 metres; two others placed their observations at 44 and 70 metres. The defence argued that the identification evidence was unreliable and that the Gardaí’s accounts of times undermined their credibility. The appeal court found that the trial judge had explained the risks of identification evidence, addressed the observation distances and the defence’s criticisms, and directed the jury to assess the evidence carefully. It held that the relevant requirements had been followed in general and dismissed this ground.
Having rejected all three grounds, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction.