The Court of Appeal has quashed James Flynn’s conviction for conspiracy to burgle after finding that the Special Criminal Court amended the charge without giving him an opportunity to respond. It did not decide whether the trial court had power to make the amendment, and said it would hear further submissions on whether to order a retrial.
Flynn had been convicted on 11 September 2023 of conspiracy to burgle and sentenced to eight years in prison, backdated to reflect time in custody. He was acquitted of a separate robbery charge. His co-accused was acquitted of both charges.
The original conspiracy charge alleged that Flynn conspired with Brendan Treanor, Aaron Brady and others, between 11 September 2012 and 23 January 2013, to enter homes and steal vehicle keys. The trial court said the wider conspiracy had not been proved, citing a lack of proof linking mobile-phone cell-location information to the cell sites relied on by the prosecution. It found a narrower conspiracy relating to the theft of a Volkswagen Passat from a house in Clogherhead on 23 January 2013.
As it delivered its verdict, the Special Criminal Court changed the particulars to refer to a conspiracy with Aaron Brady and another person, on 22 and 23 January 2013, to enter 2 Hillcrest, Clogherhead, to steal the householder’s vehicle keys. The Court of Appeal said the trial court gave no advance notice of the proposed change and neither side could make submissions. Flynn also had no opportunity to make legal arguments about the amendment, seek a direction on the amended charge or consider whether to plead guilty to it.
The appeal raised arguments about the trial court’s jurisdiction, the terms of Flynn’s extradition and the Director of Public Prosecutions’ certificate sending the case to the Special Criminal Court. The Court of Appeal did not resolve those issues. It focused on the lack of a hearing before the amendment, which it said had real consequences for Flynn and breached the principles of natural and constitutional justice. The court concluded that the trial was not conducted in due course of law under Article 38 of the Constitution.
The ruling quashes the conviction on Count 3. The court said it would hear further submissions on a retrial and would not consider the remaining grounds of appeal.