The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Brian Kenny and Thomas Hinchon leave to appeal their convictions, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s directions or the jury’s verdicts. It also refused their motion to rely on additional grounds.
The judgment, delivered on 20 October 2006, concerned convictions following a 21-day jury trial in the Central Criminal Court. The pair had been charged with murdering Jonathan O’Reilly on 17 April 2004. Kenny also faced charges of threatening to kill Joseph O’Callaghan and possessing a firearm and ammunition; Hinchon was also charged with threatening to kill O’Callaghan.
The prosecution case, as summarised in the judgment, was that one applicant drove a motorbike while the other rode as pillion and shot O’Reilly, who was in a vehicle parked outside Cloverhill Prison. The prosecution relied predominantly on O’Callaghan’s testimony. The applicants’ submissions described him as an accomplice who had immunity and was in the Witness Protection Programme. He testified that the applicants later admitted the shooting to him, threatened him, and tasked him with hiding the weapon and destroying clothing. These were prosecution allegations and evidence, not findings made by the appeal court.
The applicants challenged, among other things, the trial judge’s warning about relying on O’Callaghan’s evidence and the judge’s directions on possible corroboration. The appeal court held that the judge correctly warned the jury that O’Callaghan could be treated as an accomplice and that it was dangerous to rely on his evidence without corroboration, while explaining that the jury could still do so. It said the jury—not the judge—had to decide whether evidence such as a revolver found in a field, burnt clothing, a motorbike found at Kenny’s home and mobile-phone records actually corroborated O’Callaghan.
The court also rejected complaints about a remark that Hinchon had stayed at Kenny’s house because he had warrants out for him, the addition of firearm counts to the indictment, the trial judge’s summary of the defence, and the weight and consistency of the evidence. It said the jury had evidence capable of supporting its verdicts and that the conflicts were for the jury to resolve.
The court refused the additional grounds, noting that Convention arguments had not been raised at trial and another proposed ground could have been included in the original application. It refused leave to appeal in both cases. The judgment records no order overturning the convictions.