The Director of Public Prosecutions v Bonney & Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 239
• Docket Number: Record No: 170/2023

Between/

The People (At The Suit Of The Director Of Public Prosecutions)

Respondent

and

Jason Bonney

Appellant

Between/

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

Respondent

and

Paul Murphy

Appellant

[2025] IECA 239

Edwards J.

Kennedy J.

MacGrath J.

Record No: 170/2023

160/2023

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Convictions – Participating in the activities of a criminal organisation – Unsafe verdicts – Appellants appealing against their respective convictions – Whether the verdicts were unsafe

Facts: The appellants, Mr Bonney and Mr Murphy, on 17 April 2023, were sentenced in the Special Criminal Court, having been jointly tried and convicted before that court on individual counts of participating in the activities of a criminal organisation, contrary to s. 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Mr Bonney was sentenced to a term of 8-and-a-half years’ imprisonment and Mr Murphy was sentenced to a term of 9 years’ imprisonment. They appealed to the Court of Appeal against their respective convictions. They lodged separate notices of appeal, and as such filed separate grounds of appeal. They advanced some common grounds of appeal, and some individual grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal in common were: complaints about the admission into evidence of records of interviews before arrest; complaints concerning the lawfulness of their respective arrests; complaints in relation to the lawfulness of detention; and rolled up complaints as to the safety of the verdicts. The grounds of appeal unique to the first appellant were: complaints in relation to the admissibility of memoranda of interviews on 27 May 2016; complaints concerning treatment of defence witnesses, and the finding that the appellant was driving the suspect BMW at material times; and complaints concerning rebuttal evidence adduced by the prosecution. The grounds of appeal unique to the second appellant were: complaints concerning the admission of CCTV evidence; complaints concerning the search and seizure of the Avensis vehicle; complaints concerning admissibility of evidence obtained on foot of search warrants; complaints concerning failure to engage with the defence case and adequacy of proof of jurisdiction and of the ingredients of the alleged offence; specific complaints as to findings in the judgment of the Special Criminal Court; and general complaints concerning the correctness of the judgment of the Special Criminal Court.

Held by the Court that as it had not been satisfied to uphold any of the grounds of appeal advanced by either party, whether shared in common or advanced as applying to an individual appellant only, the appeals of both appellants against their respective convictions were dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

APPROVED JUDGMENT

NO REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Edwards on the 10th day of November 2025.

Introduction

1 On the 17th of April 2023, Mr. Jason Bonney and Mr. Paul Murphy (“the appellants”) were sentenced in the Special Criminal Court (“SCC”), having been jointly tried and convicted before that court on individual counts of participating in the activities of a criminal organisation, contrary to s. 72 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 (“the Act of 2006”).

2 In the case of Jason Bonney (otherwise “Mr. Bonney” or “the first named appellant”), the offence in question was charged as Count No 3 on the indictment, and particularised on the basis that he did, on the 5th of February 2016, within the State, with knowledge of the existence of a criminal organisation, participate in or contribute to, activity intending to, or being reckless as to whether such participation or contribution could, facilitate the commission of a serious offence by that criminal organisation or any of its members, to wit the murder of David Byrne, by providing access to a motor vehicle 08 D 50847.

3 In the case of Paul Murphy (otherwise “Mr. Murphy” or “the second named appellant”), the offence in question was charged as Count No 4 on the indictment, and particularised on the basis that he did, on the 5th of February 2016, within the State, with knowledge of the existence of a criminal organisation, participate in or contribute to, activity intending to, or being reckless as to whether such participation or contribution could, facilitate the commission of a serious offence by that criminal organisation or any of its members, to wit the murder of David Byrne, by providing access to a motor vehicle 07 D 45775.

4 Mr. Bonney was subsequently sentenced to a term of 8-and-a-half years' imprisonment and Mr. Murphy was sentenced to a term of 9 years' imprisonment, respectively.

5 The appellants' trial took place between the 10th of October 2022 and the 26th of January 2023. The appellants stood trial with a co-accused, a Mr. Gerry Hutch, who was charged with the murder of the aforementioned David Byrne but was acquitted. Two others had also been charged with crimes on the same indictment, i.e., a Mr. Jonathan Dowdall and a Mr. Patrick Dowdall, but they pleaded guilty in advance of the trial to individual counts of participating in the activities of a criminal organisation, contrary to s. 72 of the Act of 2006, and were sentenced later.

6 The appellants have appealed to the Court of Appeal against their respective convictions and the severity of the sentences imposed upon them by the SCC. However, this judgment is concerned only with their appeals against their convictions. The appeals are in each case rejected, for the reasons set out in detail below.

Notices of Appeal

7 The appellants lodged separate Notices of Appeal, and as such filed separate grounds of appeal. They advance some common grounds of appeal, and some individual grounds of appeal.

Grounds of Appeal on behalf of the First Named Appellant

8 By a Notice of Appeal lodged the 8th of June 2023, the first named appellant advanced eight grounds of appeal against his conviction, as follows:

• (1) The S.C.C. erred in fact and in law in admitting into evidence a note of an uncautioned interview/conversation with the appellant conducted by Detective Garda Alan Crummey and Detective Garda Seamus Duffy at the appellant's home on the 21st of February 216.

• (2) The S.C.C. accordingly erred in fact and in law [in holding] that the appellant's arrest on the 27th of May 2016, in part on reliance on this interview, was lawful.

• (3) The S.C.C. erred in fact and in law in findings that the detention of the appellant was lawful in circumstances where the detention was based on an incorrect summary of the case against him.

• (4) The S.C.C. accordingly erred in fact and in law in admitting into evidence the memoranda of the appellant's interviews of the 27th of May 2016 in Ballymun Garda Station.

• (5) In these circumstances, the S.C.C. further erred in fact and in law in failing to exclude the memoranda of the appellant's interviews on the 27th of May 2016 on grounds of unfairness.

• (6) The S.C.C. erred in fact and in law in its treatment of the evidence of witnesses called on behalf of the defence, one of whom was an alibi witness. The S.C.C. failed to have any or any adequate regard to this evidence and, in particular, failed to approach this evidence on the grounds that it should be preferred to the evidence of a rebuttal witness called by the respondent if it could reasonably be true.

• (7) The S.C.C. erred in fact and in law in finding that the appellant was driving the suspect BMW vehicle at the material times, and that he did so with an intention to facilitate the commission of a serious offence in circumstances where there was no evidence to support any such conclusion.

• (8) The cumulative effect of the aforementioned errors of the S.C.C. rendered the trial and verdict in respect of the appellant unsafe in all the circumstances.

9 During oral submissions counsel for the first named appellant applied to the Court for leave to add and rely upon an additional ground of appeal (i.e., “Ground A”). The proposed Ground A was in these terms:

“The SCC erred in allowing the State to call Paul Byrne to give rebuttal evidence.”

Counsel explained that this proposed additional ground had not been included in the original grounds of appeal as these had been prepared by a different legal team. Counsel for the respondent intimated that his client neither objected nor consented to the application, and would instead abide by whatever ruling the Court might make. The Court then permitted the appellant to proceed and make submissions on Ground A de bene esse, stating that the Court would rule on the application for leave to rely upon it in its judgment on the substantive appeal.

Grounds of Appeal on behalf of the Second Named Appellant

10 By a Notice of Appeal lodged the 31st of May 2023, the second named appellant advanced 38 grounds of appeal (under 9 headings) against his conviction, as follows:

“ General

1. The S.C.C. erred in refusing to accede to the various applications made on behalf of the second named appellant and on behalf of the co-accused, including those specifically adopted on behalf of the second named appellant, and having regard to all the circumstances, the trial was unsatisfactory and the verdict is unsafe.

Interviews before arrest

11 The S.C.C. erred in admitting three voluntary interviews which occurred on the 22nd February 2016, 3rd March 2016 and 9th March 2016 into evidence in the course of the trial.

12 The S.C.C. erred in admitting the three interviews when they ought to have been conducted under a specified statutory detention. The Court failed to exclude the evidence which denied the accused fair procedures and statutory protections.

13 The S.C.C. erred in admitting evidence of Interview 3, where exhibits were produced to the second named appellant outside of a s. 4 detention and thus denying the second named appellant his full protections as prescribed by law.

14...