DPP v Patrick Quirke

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Birmingham P.
• Judgment Date: 16 November 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IECA 306
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: [86/19]

Between

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

and

Patrick Quirke

Appellant

[2021] IECA 306

The President

McCarthy J.

Kennedy J.

[86/19]

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Conviction – Murder – Unfair trial – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether the trial was unfair

Facts: The appellant, Mr Quirke, following a trial which lasted 71 days, was convicted of the offence of murder by a majority verdict of 10:2. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction. Counsel on behalf of the appellant indicated that there were, in essence, two central themes in the appeal. He said that his first theme focused on the fact that this was a circumstantial evidence case, where a verdict was returned after six days of deliberation by the lowest majority permitted by law for a conviction. He said that in those circumstances, if there was any piece of evidence considered by the jury that ought not to have been, it would be difficult to determine what effect the presence of an inappropriate piece of evidence might have had. Counsel went on to say that he was making that point pre-emptively in circumstances where it might be said that some of his submissions may “seem to be somewhat marginal in terms of their substance”. However, he indicated that in a circumstantial evidence case such as this, there was a serious question to be asked if a particular building block of evidence should not have been present. Counsel then explained that his second theme was what he described as the “e pluribus unum” theme; in essence, that the multiple grounds of appeal (some 52), when viewed in conjunction, should lead to a conclusion that the trial was unsatisfactory.

Held by the Court that it was not the case that anything it had heard during the course of the appeal hearing, or anything it had read, had caused it to have doubts as to the safety of the verdict or the fairness of the trial. The Court did not uphold any of the grounds of appeal advanced.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 16th day of November 2021 by Birmingham P.

Introduction

1 Following a trial which lasted 71 days, the appellant was convicted of the offence of murder by a majority verdict of 10:2. He had stood charged that on a date unknown between 3rd June 2011 and 30th April 2013, at a location unknown within the State, he had murdered Bobby Ryan. Of note is the fact that during the trial, the jury was absent from the courtroom for more than half of the time. There were numerous voir dires. Over 100 witnesses were called, and objections were taken in the case of some two-thirds of those. Some sixty applications were made by the defence, and approximately half of those applications were successful either in whole or in part.

2 The appellant has now appealed against his conviction. 52 grounds of appeal have been advanced. For ease of reference, the grounds of appeal are appended to this judgment. The very lengthy written submissions that were filed by the appellant (which run to around 128 pages) deal with the issues under sixteen topic headings, though some of the topic headings in fact involve several sub-issues. By way of example, “ground R” relates to the judge's charge and involves: (i) criticism of what the judge had to say in relation to how circumstantial evidence should be approached; (ii) criticism of the fact that at one point, the jury was told that they were required to decide what happened; and (iii) criticism of how the judge responded to requisitions.

The Central Themes

3 At the outset of this appeal, counsel on behalf of the appellant indicated that there are, in essence, two central themes in this appeal. He said that his first theme focuses on the fact that this was a circumstantial evidence case, where a verdict was returned after six days of deliberation by the lowest majority permitted by law for a conviction. He said that in those circumstances, if there was any piece of evidence considered by the jury that ought not to have been, it would be very difficult to “unscramble the egg”; that is to say, it would be difficult to determine what effect the presence of an inappropriate piece of evidence might have had. Counsel went on to say that he was making that point pre-emptively in circumstances where it might be said that some of his submissions may “seem to be somewhat marginal in terms of their substance”. However, he indicated that in a circumstantial evidence case such as this, there was a serious question to be asked if a particular building block of evidence should not have been present.

4 Counsel then explained that his second theme is what he described, no doubt with an eye on the then imminent US presidential election, as the “e pluribus unum” (out of many, one) theme; in essence, that the multiple grounds of appeal (some 52), when viewed in conjunction, should lead to a conclusion that the trial was unsatisfactory.

The grounds as topics

5 The oral submissions of both sides were structured around the sixteen topic headings as set out in the appellant's written submissions and, in those circumstances, this judgment will be similarly structured.

6 Having first introduced the case (titled section A), and then having set out a summary of the evidence (titled section B), the appellant's submissions go on to describe the aforementioned topic headings in the following terms:

• • C: General approach to the admission of evidence;

• • D: Evidence by and related to Mary Lowry [a central witness at the trial];

• • E: Evidence by and related to Dr. John Manlove [a forensic entomologist called by the prosecution at trial];

• • F: Evidence by and related to Michael Reilly [an engineer called as a prosecution witness];

• • G: The impeachment of Stephen O'Sullivan [a plumber called by the prosecution as a witness at the behest of the defence];

• • H: Garda observations and related material;

• • I: Search warrant;

• • J: Various interview objections;

• • K: Civilian witnesses [a shorthand reference to a number of witnesses including Emmet Kenny and Gary Cunningham, part-time employees of the appellant since each had completed a work/study placement; Breda O'Dwyer, an artificial insemination contractor; Sean Dillon, a young witness who helped out on the farm; and Eddie Quigley, brother of witness Mary Lowry. Here, the appellant was content to rest on his written submissions];

• • L: Computer and audio;

• • M: Dr. Michael Curtis and pathology;

• • N: Tusla and related matters;

• • O: Applications to discharge the jury;

• • P: Direction application;

• • Q: P.O'C. application; and

• • R: The judge's charge.

7 Before turning to address the issues raised on the appeal, it may be helpful to lay out the general background to the trial and to introduce some of the principal participants.

Background to the appeal

The relationships between the principal participants

8 Patrick Quirke, hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”, is a dairy farmer with a holding in Breanshamore, County Tipperary. He also farmed land in the neighbouring townland of Fawnagowan. These lands had been held by Mary Lowry and her husband, Martin Lowry.

9 Mr. Lowry died in September 2007. The appellant is married to Imelda, Mr. Lowry's sister. There was evidence at trial that the appellant and Mr. Lowry, both of whom were dairy farmers, had worked together, had common investments and often shared machinery. The appellant held the lands at Fawnagowan on foot of a seven-year lease dating from 8th April 2008. The trial heard evidence that in or around January 2008, the appellant and Ms. Lowry entered into a sexual relationship of which nobody else was aware.

10 Towards the end of 2010, Ms. Lowry met the deceased, Bobby Ryan, for the first time, and began a relationship with him shortly thereafter. Ms. Lowry gave evidence that she ended the affair with the appellant, that the appellant did not take this well, and that he seemed to be quite depressed and very down. In August 2010, there was a meeting in Hayes Hotel in Thurles involving the appellant, the late Mr. Ryan and Ms. Lowry. In the end, Mr. Ryan and the appellant shook hands and parted amicably.

11 Ms. Lowry's evidence was that her relationship with Mr. Ryan continued into 2011 and he began to stay over in her home. She also gave evidence that, at the same time, her relationship with the appellant deteriorated. She referred to an occasion in January 2011 when she came home to find him hiding behind the door of her porch. On 14th February 2011, Ms. Lowry received a letter from Tusla stating that there had been reports that her children were not being adequately cared for. These reports emanated from the appellant.

The “Dear Patricia” column

12 Ms. Lowry's evidence then made reference to a letter that appeared in the “Dear Patricia” column, an agony aunt segment, in the Sunday Independent newspaper under the heading: “I'm bereft now affair with my best friend's widow is over”. The letter outlined how the author fell “deeply in love”, but that the relationship came to an abrupt end when his lover started seeing somebody else and forgot about him, and poured all her energy into developing her new relationship with a man “who promised everything I couldn't”. The author of the letter wrote that he felt broken-hearted and angry at how well things had worked out for her, despite her lying and cheating on him. The author stated that he was still in love with his ex-lover, but accepted that the relationship was over and that she had shared the history of their relationship with her new lover. The details contained in the published letter enabled Ms. Lowry, when she read it, to identify its author.

The disappearance of the late Mr. Ryan

13 The trial court heard evidence that Mr. Ryan called to Ms. Lowry's house at approximately 9.30pm on 2nd June 2011 and...