The Court of Appeal has dismissed Liam Power’s appeal against his conviction for murder, ruling that the trial was not unfair or unsatisfactory and that the verdict was not unsafe.
Power was convicted on 16 November 2016 by a majority verdict of 10 to two, after the jury deliberated for 14 hours and 38 minutes over four days. The appeal challenged the admission of remarks he made to Gardaí at his home after caution and the trial judge’s directions to the jury on intoxication and the intent required for murder.
The judgment said the deceased, Gints Intenpergs, was found dead at his home in Tullow, Co Carlow, on 16 September 2014. The cause of death was a subdural haemorrhage caused by blunt force trauma to the head. A second man, Aigars Sildars, was found assaulted in another room.
At trial, the defence accepted that Power had unlawfully killed Intenpergs but argued that intoxication prevented him from forming the intent required for murder. Provocation was also raised. The judgment said evidence showed a social gathering at the house, where an arm-wrestling game developed into a physical altercation. Power was also acquitted of an assault charge relating to Sildars. The murder charge against co-accused Mr Sackalausks was withdrawn after a ruling on admissions; he later pleaded guilty to assaulting Sildars.
At Power’s residence in Carlow, he told Gardaí after caution: “Things got out of control and I kicked the head off him.” He signed the Garda notebook, and later, during a station interview after being certified fit to be questioned, agreed the earlier notes were correct. The defence argued that admitting the remarks was unfair given concerns about his intoxication. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to admit them, saying his intoxication and unfitness for interview did not prevent Gardaí from recording what he had chosen to say.
The appeal also challenged the judge’s explanation that voluntary intoxication could be considered when deciding whether Power had the specific intent to kill or cause serious injury. The court found the charge accurately stated the law and that no particular wording was required. It said the jury was properly directed, while noting that language used in an earlier case could be helpful to trial judges in future.
The court concluded that neither ground warranted intervention and dismissed the appeal.