The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Lammon’s appeal over his murder conviction, finding that he had instructed his trial lawyers to accept edited evidence about a conversation he allegedly had with a garda while in custody.
The appeal concerned whether Lammon’s defence team had agreed, without his authority, to let the jury hear three extracts from a Garda memorandum. Lammon said he had instructed his lawyers to challenge the account in full. His former solicitor, David Gibbons, said Lammon had considered the available options and agreed to the prosecution’s proposal.
The disputed conversation was said to have taken place during an exercise period at Kildare Garda Station on 26 August 2015. Garda Danny O’Shea’s memorandum attributed several remarks to Lammon, including that “the bullet was meant for Jamie Quinn”. Lammon denied making the remarks. The jury did not hear the full memorandum; it heard edited extracts, including that statement.
Lammon was convicted of murdering Jason Doogue after a 12-day trial in the Central Criminal Court. The prosecution case included eyewitness identification evidence and other circumstantial evidence. At trial, the defence explored whether Doogue might have been killed by someone else or mistaken for another intended target.
On appeal, the court heard sworn evidence from Lammon and Gibbons, who were both cross-examined. The judges had to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, the defence team had acted contrary to Lammon’s instructions. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the appeal should be dismissed and said the trial verdict could stand even if the court found that instructions had not been followed.
The court accepted Gibbons’s account that the prosecution offer was discussed with Lammon on the morning the evidence was admitted. It relied in part on the trial transcript, which recorded the prosecution telling the trial judge that the parties had agreed how the evidence would be presented. The court also considered a 2017 attendance note recording that Lammon and Gibbons had discussed the agreement after the trial.
The judges concluded that Lammon had understood the options and instructed his lawyers to accept the edited evidence. They said the decision was rational and informed, and that the appeal did not establish that his legal team had acted against his instructions. The court therefore dismissed the appeal. It did not overturn the murder conviction or make a new finding on Lammon’s guilt.