The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Power’s appeal against his conviction for assault causing serious harm, assault and producing a knife during a dispute in Dublin in June 2015. The court rejected all three remaining grounds of appeal and left the conviction and sentence undisturbed.
Power had been convicted on 19 July 2017 of attacking Thomas Hanrahan on Cope Street and Anglesea Street on 27 June 2015. The judgment records a 10-year prison sentence, with the final 18 months suspended for two years on conditions. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 8 March 2019.
The central issue at trial was whether Power was one of the attackers. Gardaí identified him from CCTV footage taken from nearby premises. The appeal challenged the admission of that recognition evidence, arguing that evidence of Gardaí knowing and regularly encountering Power could imply a criminal context and prejudice the jury. The appeal court said the trial judge had carefully balanced probative value against prejudice. It found no suggestion that the Gardaí’s knowledge of Power reflected badly on him or implied involvement in criminality. The court also rejected the objection to CCTV evidence placing him with John Power, whom Hanrahan had identified as one of his assailants.
Power also challenged evidence from a Garda about Hanrahan’s fears for his safety after the attack, including concern that the Donovan and Power families might learn where he was. The appeal court said the evidence was not referable to Power, noting that the witness later confirmed the safety concerns did not refer to him. It found no basis to discharge the jury on that ground.
A bystander, Padraig O’Neill, identified Power in court as one of the men involved. The appeal court described this as an accidental, inadmissible dock identification that carried no weight and should not have been elicited. The trial judge directed the jury to disregard it and to acquit if it tipped the balance toward conviction. The appeal court said there was every reason to conclude the jury followed that direction and found any prejudicial effect had been dissipated.
The court rejected all remaining grounds and dismissed the appeal. It did not order a retrial or alter the sentence.