The Director of Public Prosecutions v Slator

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 13 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 267
• Docket Number: Record No: 170/2022

Between/

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

Respondent

and

Christopher Slator

Appellant

[2025] IECA 267

Edwards J.

McCarthy J.

Kennedy J.

Record No: 170/2022

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Conviction – Murder – Unsatisfactory trial – Appellant appealing against conviction – Whether the trial court erred in law and/or principle in failing to properly consider the direction application at the close of the prosecution’s case

Facts: The appellant, Mr Slator, was convicted by the Special Criminal Court (the SCC) of the sole count of murder contrary to common law and as provided for in s. 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964. By a Notice of Appeal the appellant indicated his desire to appeal against his conviction. Five grounds of appeal were subsequently filed. Grounds (iii) and (iv) were not ultimately proceeded with. The remaining grounds were in the following terms: (i) the trial court erred in law and/or principle in failing to properly consider the direction application at the close of the prosecution’s case; (ii) the trial court erred in law or in fact (or in a mixed question of law and fact) in admitting DNA evidence related to SOD 71 and SOD 64; and (v) the trial court erred in law or in fact (or in a mixed question of law and fact) in placing reliance on a trip taken by the appellant to Thailand in the days after the alleged offence as being supportive of the charge against him.

Held by the Court of Appeal that there had been no unfairness and that the requirement to rule expressly on the direction application was overtaken by the SCC, having concluded in the course of its deliberations at the end of the case that the prosecution had met the evidential burden necessary for the case to be considered by the court in its role as a tribunal of fact, adopting the course of proceeding immediately to then consider the entire case against the appellant and whether the prosecution had proven him guilty of the offence charged to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt; the SCC concluded that he was indeed guilty and fully and comprehensively explained how they had reached that conclusion. The Court was therefore satisfied that the appellant had no legitimate basis for complaint in respect of the failure to rule specifically on the direction application. The Court held that the SCC’s conclusions on the issue of possible contamination/cross contamination were cogent, rational and grounded in the evidence. The Court saw no basis on which it would be legally justified in second guessing them or seeking to interfere with them. The Court found that SCC’s analysis exhibited no error in approach and was supported by the evidence. The Court was satisfied that it was legally unassailable. The Court held that the evidence received concerning the travel and travel arrangements of the appellant and his associate in the days immediately succeeding the shooting was admissible as circumstantial evidence and was relevant and potentially probative. The Court found the SCC’s analysis concerning the potential significance of that evidence to be compelling. The Court rejected the suggestion that those findings must be regarded as speculative, finding that they were well supported by the evidence.

The Court held that the appellant’s trial was satisfactory and his conviction was safe. The Court dismissed his appeal against his conviction.

Appeal dismissed.

APPROVED JUDGMENT

NO REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Edwards on the 13 ^th day of November, 2025.

Introduction

1 On the 15th of July 2022, Mr. Christopher Slator (i.e., “the appellant”) was convicted by the Special Criminal Court (“the SCC”) of the sole count of murder contrary to common law and as provided for in s. 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964. He was sentenced on the same day to the mandatory sentence of imprisonment for life to date from the 23rd of December 2020. He now appeals against his said conviction.

2 We will describe the basis of the appeal presently. However, in order to do so most efficiently, and in order to place each ground of appeal in its appropriate context, the most convenient way of proceeding is to first of all outline the background to the case, including the substantial body of evidence which is uncontroversial and the findings based on that evidence made by the court below; the evidence as to controversial matters; the case made at trial by the prosecution; how controversial issues were resolved by the court below; and how the court below arrived at its verdict. In doing so, we will quote liberally, and verbatim, to a large extent from the judgment of the court below, delivered on the 15th of July 2022.

Background

Evidence and findings of the SCC

3 On the 25th of April 2016, a Mr. Michael Barr was shot dead whilst he was in the Sunset House, a licensed premises on Summerhill Parade in Dublin 1. The circumstances, as summarised in the judgment of the SCC, were that at approximately 9.30 pm,

“two men entered the Sunset House and walked up to Mr. Barr, who was standing outside the bar area. Both of these men were described as wearing rubber masks pulled down over their heads and covering their faces. They were dressed in dark clothing. One of the patrons of the licensed premises referred to one of the men as wearing a boiler suit. Other patrons referred to the man who did the shooting as wearing something on his head in the nature of a hat, in addition to the mask. Some of the patrons noted that one of the men was significantly taller than the other. One of the men fired and shot at Michael Barr at close range, the other man's gun shot at the bar. Witnesses have described the guns as having silencers on the guns. Michael Barr fell to the ground whereupon the two men ran from the premises and got into an awaiting car which was facing in the Ballybough direction. The injuries sustained by Michael Barr were such that he lost his life immediately. The post-mortem examination revealed that he had sustained five gunshots to his head, one to his shoulder and one to his leg. The bullets which were shot at Michael Barr were recovered from his body.

At 9.38 pm, a silver Audi pulled up on the footpath at Walsh Road, Drumcondra. Three men alighted in that car. CCTV footage of that scene shows two of the men wearing an all-in-one suit which they remove and put into the car. All three men are seen standing outside the car, bending down into it, in what appears to be the action of putting items into the car. When the men are finished bending into the car, all three men's faces and shapes of their head look different from when they initially got out of the car. Two of the men can be seen removing whatever is covering their faces. The third man can also be seen removing an item from around his head and throwing it into the car. The car goes on fire after one of the men threw a lighted object into the car whereupon the men flee the scene. A green petrol can was found located at the passenger side of the vehicle after the incident. James Fogarty, who lived on Walsh Road, saw this car arriving at the scene. The car was travelling very fast and screeched to a halt. He saw three men alight from the vehicle and saw one of the men drop something shiny and bright on the ground. A phone was later discovered on the ground beside the car. Mr Fogarty witnessed these men at the passenger side of the door of the car, pouring liquid into the car. They then dispersed to the Millmount direction, he surmised Milburn, on foot. Mr Fogarty went over to the burning car and opened the front passenger door. He was hoping to somehow put out the fire, as his car was in very close proximity. This had the effect of causing the flames of the car to increase in volume, so he quickly closed the door. Michael Sheedy, who also lived on Walsh Road, also witnessed three men running from the burning car towards Milburn Avenue and getting into a car which was stationary there. Two men got into the back of the car, whereas the third man got into the front passenger seat. The car sped away immediately, thereby implying that a driver was awaiting their arrival. The guards had been contacted and arrived at the scene within three to four minutes of 9.38 pm. Detective Garda Horkin utilized a fire extinguisher located in his car to attempt to extinguish the fire. He obtained a second fire extinguisher from another garda car which came on the scene, and he also used that. The CCTV footage which depicted the Audi pulling into the footpath at Walsh Road, reveals that there was no interference with the car for the duration that the CCTV was operational for namely, an hour and three quarters after the arrival of the Audi. A Garda cordon was set up incorporating a large area around the Audi during that time. The court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the scene was properly preserved and that there was no interference with the Audi by any unauthorised person before it was removed to the secure garda compound at Santry later that morning.”

4 The judgment then moves to the evidence concerning events in the early aftermath of the shooting. The SCC's judgment states:

“At 9.38 pm, a silver Audi pulled up on the footpath at Walsh Road, Drumcondra. Three men alighted in that car. CCTV footage of that scene shows two of the men wearing an all-in-one suit which they remove and put into the car. All three men are seen standing outside the car, bending down into it, in what appears to be the action of putting items into the car. When the men are finished bending into the car, all three men's faces and shapes of their head look different from when they initially got out of the car. Two of the men can be seen removing whatever is covering their faces. The third man can also be seen removing an item from around his head and throwing it into the car. The car goes on fire after one of the men threw a...