Judgment: 2005-05-12 · Court archive

Court rejects Christopher O’Callaghan appeal over Limerick murder conviction

Court of Criminal Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Christopher O’Callaghan
  • Michael Fitzpatrick
  • John Devane
What

Court rejects Christopher O’Callaghan appeal over Limerick murder conviction

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Roxboro Road
  • Central Criminal Court
  • Court of Criminal Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

O’Callaghan was convicted by a Central Criminal Court jury on July 26, 2002. The prosecution case concerned a fatal stabbing outside a pub on Roxboro Road, where witnesses described O’Callaghan and Fitzpatrick fighting. The State Pathologist found eight stab wounds, five of which penetrated body cavities and damaged organs including the heart and lung.

The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Christopher O’Callaghan leave to appeal his conviction for the murder of 19-year-old Michael Fitzpatrick in Limerick.

O’Callaghan was convicted by a Central Criminal Court jury on July 26, 2002. The prosecution case concerned a fatal stabbing outside a pub on Roxboro Road, where witnesses described O’Callaghan and Fitzpatrick fighting. The State Pathologist found eight stab wounds, five of which penetrated body cavities and damaged organs including the heart and lung.

The main appeal issue concerned four answers O’Callaghan gave during Garda interviews after his arrest on July 1, 1999. Among them were statements that he could not remember where he had thrown a knife and that he might have killed Fitzpatrick but could not remember.

His solicitor at the time, John Devane, told the trial court that he had advised O’Callaghan to respond to questioning with the formula, “I can’t remember. If I remember I’ll tell you,” as a way of exercising his right to silence. Devane later advised him simply to say “no comment”.

The appeal court described the original advice as improper professional advice because following it regardless of the truth could mislead Gardaí. However, it found that O’Callaghan, who had recently turned 18, understood the Garda caution and was capable of choosing whether to follow or depart from that advice.

The court upheld the trial judge’s finding that the four disputed responses were deliberate and voluntary statements and were therefore admissible. It also rejected the argument that admitting them created unfairness.

Two further grounds were refused. The court found there was a proper evidential basis for the case to go to the jury and said there was ample evidence on which the jury was entitled to convict. The application for leave to appeal was refused in full.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review