The Court of Criminal Appeal was urged by lawyers for the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday to reject the appeals of two men convicted of offences arising from a row outside Anabel's nightclub in Dublin in August 2000 during which teenage student Brian Murphy died.
Counsel for the DPP argued that Dermot Laide and Desmond Ryan were given a fair trial in accordance with law, that the jury's verdicts on their cases were in accordance with the evidence, and that their appeals should be refused.
Yesterday was the third day of the appeals by Laide (23), of Castleblayney, Co Monaghan, and Ryan (24), of Cunningham Road, Dalkey, Dublin. Laide was convicted of manslaughter and violent disorder and sentenced to four years while Ryan was convicted of violent disorder and given a nine-month sentence. Both men are appealing against their convictions and sentences.
In March 2004, the trial judge in the Circuit Criminal Court postponed Ryan's sentence to allow him complete university examinations. Ryan was later granted bail pending his appeal.
Submissions for Laide were completed on Wednesday and Mr Patrick Gageby SC, yesterday outlined the grounds of Ryan's appeal. Mr Brendan Grehan SC, with Mr Edward Comyn SC, for the DPP, then opened their response.
Dealing initially with the Laide case, Mr Grehan said the prosecution argued there was evidence that the jury could lawfully have acted on that they could conclude that his actions on the particular night rendered him guilty of manslaughter.
Responding to a submission that Laide should have had a separate trial from other accused, Mr Grehan said such an application should have been made at the outset of the case in the Circuit Criminal Court. No application was made for a separate trial until the fifth week of the hearing after some 50 eyewitnesses had given evidence.
The thrust of the case on behalf of Laide was that the jury could not be trusted, predicated on the premise that they could not be trusted to abide by warnings of the trial judge, counsel said.
Mr Grehan said our system placed great trust on the juries in cases. They were told an accused enjoyed a presumption of innocence. Juries were given evidence in relation to certain types of evidence and publicity. Similar warnings were given in cases where there were co-accused.
There was nothing to suggest that the system of trial by jury was misplaced or resulted in wrongful convictions or miscarriages of justice. If a jury could not be trusted, the entire system would have to be thrown out.
Mr Grehan referred to the evidence of a number of witnesses to the events and said the jury had been entitled to look at the evidence in the round.
Earlier, Mr Gageby, outlining Ryan's appeal, argued the trial judge was wrong in allowing into evidence memos of an interview alleged to record admissions by Ryan because, it was claimed, Ryan was in unlawful detention at the time.
It was submitted that gardaí were "trespassers" in Ryan's home at the time of his arrest on September 26th, 2000 and that this rendered his arrest and subsequent detention unlawful.
The gardaí had entered the Ryan house on foot of a warrant. However, while the trial judge found that the warrant was bad, it was argued the prosecution sought to validate the entry by reference to an alternative statutory power. That could not be done, it was contended.
The court was told the primary and most significant evidence against Ryan comprised the memos of an interview recorded on September 26th, 2000. Objection had been taken at the trial to the admissibility of the memos.
The trial judge ruled that the search warrant was bad but held that he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was the gardaí's intention to effect Ryan's arrest for reasons other than any evidence they might find in a search of the dwelling. The hearing continues on Tuesday.