The Court of Appeal has dismissed Thomas Bates’s appeal against his convictions for conspiring to possess a firearm, ammunition and an explosive substance. It said it had not been persuaded to uphold any ground of appeal and was not in doubt about the fairness of the trial or the safety of the verdict.
Bates was convicted in the Circuit Criminal Court in Clonmel on 30 May 2019, after a trial alongside Nigel Gartland. Gartland was acquitted by direction. A separate fourth count concerning possession of six rounds of ammunition did not result in a conviction. The appeal court heard challenges concerning the indictment, witnesses who gave evidence under codenames, communications admitted in evidence, the extension of Bates’s detention, interview evidence, the decision to leave the case to the jury and the judge’s charge.
The case arose from an online transaction in 2017 between an FBI undercover employee, referred to in court as Agent Peter, and a user of the moniker Snow4. The buyer requested delivery to an address in Cahir associated with Bates. Gardaí arranged a controlled delivery. Evidence at trial was that Bates accepted the package, saying it was for his son Tim, who was in hospital; the judgment records that evidence indicated Bates did not have a son by that name. The appeal court said there had never been any suggestion that Bates was Snow4 or that he had direct contact with Agent Peter.
The court rejected the challenge to the use of codenames for Agent Peter and two National Surveillance Unit officers. It found no rule that barred the trial judge from allowing witnesses to be identified by descriptions or pseudonyms, and no unfairness or prejudice to the defence had been shown. It also upheld the admission of records of the online exchanges, concluding that they were relevant to show that communications took place, rather than to prove the truth of assertions by Snow4.
On detention, the appeal court held that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that the extension was lawful, based on evidence about the information shared between the investigating officer and the senior officer who directed it. It also rejected the challenge to portions of Bates’s interview, finding his answers admissible.
The court said the evidence could support an inference that Bates had acted pursuant to an agreement with another person, even though Gartland had been acquitted and the identity of the other party did not have to be proved. It found the jury had been adequately directed on conspiracy and the evidence. The appeal was dismissed; the convictions therefore stand.