DPP v Doyle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Edwards J.,Birmingham J.
• Judgment Date: 08 May 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IECA 109
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: [50/2012]
• Date: 08 May 2015

[2015] IECA 109

THE COURT OF APPEAL

The President

Birmingham J.

Edwards J.

[50/2012]

Between

The People (At the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Prosecutor/Respondent

and

Barry Doyle

Appellant

Murder – Conviction – Appeal – Evidential Matters – Practice and Procedures – Admissibility – Constitutional Rights – Fairness – Duress

Facts: In this case the appellant who had been convicted of murder appealed against his conviction on grounds that reflected issues and rulings that arose during the trial, in addition to a later legal ground. The issues that had to be decided concerned admissions made by the appellant, evidential matters in respect of two witnesses, criticisms of the judge”s charge to the jury, material that was furnished to the jury and finally a legal issue arising out of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11, that was decided subsequently to the trial.

Held by Justice Ryan in light of the available evidence and submissions presented that the appellant”s advisors had legitimately advanced every ground of objection in defending their client. All of their extensive submissions were fully ventilated and carefully considered by the trial judge. The many issues were re-visited in a hearing by the Court that occupied two full days of oral argument and which were also explored in comprehensive submissions that were of great assistance to the Court. Consequently, Justice Ryan was satisfied that none of the grounds of appeal could succeed. The trial was satisfactory and the conviction of Mr. Doyle was safe.

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by the President on 8th June 2015

The Conviction

1 On 15th February 2012, after a trial lasting 22 days in the Central Criminal Court, the appellant was convicted of the murder of Shane Geoghegan at Clonmore, Kilteragh, Dooradoyle in Limerick. The murder was committed on 9th November 2008. On conviction, the mandatory life sentence was imposed. It was a retrial following a previous disagreement of the jury.

2 He now appeals against his conviction on 27 grounds of appeal that reflect issues and rulings that arose during the trial, in addition to a later legal ground. The issues that have to be decided concern admissions made by the appellant, evidential matters in respect of two witnesses, criticisms of the judge's charge to the jury, material that was furnished to the jury and finally a legal issue arising out of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11, that was decided subsequently to the trial.

3 The hearing of the appeal extended over two days and the appellant and the respondent had previously filed lengthy written submissions addressing all the issues.

The Murder

4 Shane Geoghegan lived in No. 2 Clonmore with his girlfriend. At about 1.00am on Sunday 9th November 2008, he was making his way home from a friend's house nearby. He was walking across a green area in the housing estate when he was shot and wounded. In an attempt to escape from his assailant, he ran into the back of No. 38 Clonmore. The killer followed him in to the back garden and shot him there repeatedly.

5 According to the prosecution, another man who lived locally was the killer's target and the victim's death was a case of mistaken identity.

The Investigation

6 Barry Doyle was arrested on 24th February 2009 under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act on suspicion of murdering Shane Geoghegan and brought to Bruff Garda Station for questioning. This period of detention was first extended by Chief Superintendent McMahon and later by the District Court. His girlfriend Victoria Gunnery, the mother of Barry Doyle's daughter Demi Leigh, who was living in Dublin was arrested at the same time on suspicion of withholding information and was brought to Ballymun Garda station for questioning. Her detention was also extended by order of the District Court, for which purpose she was unnecessarily brought to Limerick in the mistaken belief, according to the evidence of a Garda Officer, that that was the appropriate court. While she was being questioned the information that she furnished was being transmitted to the Gardaí who were interviewing Barry Doyle.

7 Two teams of two Gardaí each carried out the interrogation of the appellant. It was slow going at first because he was unwilling to engage with his interviewers. Their efforts were directed in the first instance at getting him to talk to them about himself and his relationships, including those with his children and with Victoria Gunnery. He was reluctant to engage with them but the Gardaí persisted. Mr. Doyle had brief consultations with a solicitor. All of the interviews were video-recorded.

8 The appellant's attitude changed at interview 15, which began at 19.42 on 26th February 2009. In the previous interview that concluded at 18.35, Mr. Doyle had asked to see his solicitor Mr. O'Donnell and the Gardaí told him that he was on his way. In due course, the solicitor arrived and spoke to his client. The solicitor then approached the Gardaí with an offer. Mr. Doyle would say that he killed Shane Geoghegan if the Gardaí agreed to release Victoria Gunnery. The deal on offer was that he would answer one question only, to confirm that he had killed the deceased. The Gardaí rejected the offer. They said that they wanted Mr. Doyle to tell the truth, that answering one question would not be satisfactory in any case because it would not enable the Gardaí to find out if he was telling the truth and there could be no deal because that would be an inducement which would make any admission inadmissible in court. Mr. O'Donnell returned to his client and had a further brief consultation.

9 Then interview 15 began, but it was interrupted after a few minutes by a phone call from the solicitor who wanted to speak with his client, which then happened. Thereafter, the interview recommenced. Mr. Doyle now answered the questions put to him regarding his role and confirmed that he was the person who shot Shane Geoghegan. He gave details of how he had waited for his victim, having been driven there by another person whom he did not name. He described the shooting, how it happened first on the green in front of the houses, how the gun jammed and he cleared it by ejecting the bullets, how he then resumed the pursuit by going around to the back of the house where he shot Mr. Geoghegan a number of times including once in the head from short range.

10 The Gardaí asked Mr. Doyle to draw them a map of the scene and he obliged, using writing materials the Gardaí provided. He showed the points that were relevant including where the car had been parked and which way it was facing, the direction that Mr. Geoghegan had come from, where he Mr. Doyle shot Mr. Geoghegan the first time, where he ejected the bullets to clear the gun mechanism and where he had gone round to the back of the house and finished off his victim. This information was important, as the prosecution alleged, because it included facts that the Gardaí did not know or were mistaken about.

11 At the termination of interview 15, after the tape was sealed, the Gardaí asked Mr. Doyle about his feelings for the Geoghegan family and he said he was sorry for them and in a gesture of sympathy he took off the rosary beads that he was wearing round his neck and said to give it to Shane Geoghegan's mother.

12 The final interviews added little to the information that Barry Doyle had given the Gardaí. It was clear that he was willing to admit that he was the killer but he steadfastly refused to implicate anybody else.

The Trial

(a) The Trial within a Trial

13 The trial in the Central Criminal Court took 22 days, of which the first 11 consisted of a voir dire hearing into the admissibility of the admissions. Over 20 hours of video recordings were played in Court and the interviewing officers gave evidence in chief and were cross-examined. The way it operated was that a recording of an interview was shown on screen and then the witnesses were questioned. In turn, further videos were played and the interviewers testified. At the end of the evidence, the defence and prosecution counsel made submissions in regard to the same questions that arise on this appeal, namely, inducement or threat, oppression and fairness.

14 The defence objected to the admissibility of the defendant's admissions first on the ground that they were made as a result of inducement or a threat, namely, that Victoria Gunnery would be released if he confessed or that she would continue to be detained if he did not.

15 Secondly, the appellant was subjected to oppression. There was breach of the accused's constitutional right of access to legal advice. He did not get adequate opportunity to have such advice and he was entitled to have his solicitor present during questioning but was not afforded such facilities.

16 Thirdly, it was submitted that the questioning of the appellant breached the requirements of fundamental fairness in accordance with the principles in People (DPP) v Shaw [1982] 1 I.R. 1, and the trial Court erred in not exercising its overall and residual power to exclude the admissions in the interest of fairness.

17 The appellant did not contend that he was subjected to any physical abuse and no complaint is made as to his physical treatment. Neither was it suggested ‘that of itself there was sufficient oppression to overbear the will of the accused’.

18 The trial judge held that the admissions made by Barry Doyle were voluntary; he had adequate access to legal advice; there was no oppression; the appellant was in full control of himself throughout; and that even if the remarks could amount to an inducement, the effect had worn off at the relevant time...