The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gerard Harrington’s appeal against his conviction for making a false report about missing cattle, finding the trial satisfactory and the verdict safe.
Harrington was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Criminal Court for the Midlands Circuit, sitting in Tullamore, on 26 July 2021. The offence was making a false report or statement tending to give rise to apprehension for the safety of persons or property, contrary to section 12 of the Criminal Law Act 1976. He was fined €6,500 on 20 October 2021. The appeal judgment, delivered on 16 May 2024, addresses the conviction appeal only; it does not determine his separate appeal against sentence.
The case concerned a statement Harrington made at Boyle Garda station on 6 October 2015, reporting ten cattle missing. Garda Catriona McGrath later found six of the adult cattle and a calf matching the report’s description in a shed at Breedogue, County Roscommon. Padraig McCrann and Kenneth Drury testified that cattle belonging to Harrington and McCrann had been found together in a neighbour’s field and moved to the shed. McCrann said he had told Harrington where his cattle were before Harrington made the statement. Harrington denied knowing that his cattle were in the shed before reporting them missing.
At trial, the defence challenged the investigation and the reliability of the Garda evidence, and argued that the offence had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict after deliberating for two hours and 19 minutes.
Harrington’s appeal notice listed 81 grounds. At the hearing, his counsel said he would pursue only the first 34, which the court considered in eight groups. The Court of Appeal rejected the challenges, including claims concerning the admission of Harrington’s cautioned interview, the handling of jury hearing difficulties, prosecution questioning, and the trial judge’s directions. It said the judge had dealt appropriately with the jury’s hearing concerns by offering to replay the recorded evidence; the jury did not request a replay. The court also found sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury and rejected the claim that the verdict was perverse.
The court concluded that the conviction appeal should be dismissed. Its ruling leaves the conviction in place; the judgment makes no determination on the separate sentence appeal.