Court rejects appeal against murder conviction

A Cork man has lost his appeal against his conviction for the murder of another man, whom he stabbed ten times in the head and…

A Cork man has lost his appeal against his conviction for the murder of another man, whom he stabbed ten times in the head and neck while robbing him in his home.

Frank Cunningham (21), from Bride Valley View, Fairhill, Cork, was jailed for life in October 2005 after he was convicted of murdering and robbing Patrick Walsh (28), a father of one, at his home at Fairhill Drive.

The trial was told that Mr Walsh was stabbed four times in the head and six times in the neck. The prosecution said the main motive for the murder was robbery.

The court heard Cunningham had a number of previous convictions including for robbery of an internet cafe in Cork on the morning of the murder.  Gardai said Cunningham had a drug problem and was abusing prescription drugs at the time of the killing.

READ MORE

At the Court of Criminal Appeal today, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan, presiding at the three judge court, said it would refuse Cunningham's appeal. The court rejected arguments on behalf of Cunningham that his constitutional right of access to a solicitor was breached.

There were times when Cunningham said he wantd a solicitor and other times when he said he did not and the situation was hopelessly confused, the judge said.

Any such request had to be made to the member in charge of the Garda station where Cunninganm was detained and on the two occasions when that member asked Cunningham if he wanted a solicitor, he had rpelied he did not.

It would be unfair to the gardai and not right to hold that there was any deliberate or conscious breach of Cunningham's right to a solicitor.

The court also said it had "no doubt" that Cunningham's claim that he was so intoxicated by drugs when he made a statement to gardai, which was videotaped, was not a valid ground of appeal.

The jury had watched the video and were well able to assess Cunningham and decide if he was so intoxicated he could not follow questions. They had not so concluded, Mr Justice Geoghegan said.