The Court of Appeal has allowed Danny Wyatt’s appeal against the dismissal of his judicial review challenge to the way his assault trial was conducted, ruling that two separately indicted accused could not be tried concurrently before the same jury.
Wyatt and Nathan Burke were each charged with assault causing harm over the same alleged incident. Burke was sent forward for trial first, and Wyatt was sent forward on a later date after a bench warrant had issued for him. When both appeared before the Circuit Court, a joint indictment was initially presented. At a preliminary hearing, the prosecution obtained permission to amend it so that it covered Burke alone and to file a separate indictment against Wyatt. The trial judge then directed that the two cases proceed together before the same jury.
The jury found Wyatt guilty but could not reach a majority verdict on Burke. Wyatt brought judicial review proceedings before sentence was imposed. The High Court dismissed his case. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge had been wrong to treat Wyatt’s arguments about possible effects of the concurrent trials as new grounds outside the scope of the judicial review leave. The appeal proceeded with the prosecution’s agreement, though the Court of Appeal said that should not be understood as endorsing either side’s choice to pursue judicial review before sentencing.
The central question was whether separate indictments could be tried at the same time before one jury. The Court of Appeal found that they could not. It held that Irish law and common law provide for a jury to try an accused on a single indictment, while allowing co-accused to be tried together on a joint indictment. The court said the procedure used in Wyatt’s case was not a joint trial: the jury received two charge sheets and had to reach separate verdicts.
The judgment identified potential problems with that arrangement, including how jury challenges work and whether one accused could be compelled to testify in the other’s trial. These were examples of risks to fair trial protections; the appeal was not based on a claim of particular prejudice in Wyatt’s case.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial was a nullity and allowed the appeal. The judgment does not state a sentence imposed on Wyatt or set out any further order concerning a retrial.