The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Harte and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Patrick McCarthy
• Judgment Date: 13 January 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 305
• Docket Number: Record No.: 246/21; 247/21; 5/22

Between/

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

and

Alan Harte, Alan O'Brien, and Darren Redmond

Appellants

[2025] IECA 305

McCarthy J.

Kennedy J.

Burns J.

Record No.: 246/21; 247/21; 5/22

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Conviction – Assault causing serious harm – Admissibility of evidence – Appellants appealing against conviction – Whether evidence was admissible

Facts: The appellants, Mr Harte, Mr O’Brien and Mr Redmond, were convicted by the Special Criminal Court of false imprisonment, contrary to s. 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, and assault causing serious harm, contrary to s. 4 of the 1997 Act. They appealed to the Court of Appeal against conviction. They each filed extensive grounds of appeal which overlapped to some extent. The legal issues which arose for determination were: (a) the requirement for a conviction to be grounded on evidence sworn during the currency of the trial proper; (b) the admissibility of mobile phone call data records; (c) access to phone records on foot of search warrants issued pursuant to s. 10 of the 1997 Act; (d) the admissibility of CCTV and ANPR evidence; (e) the admissibility of DNA evidence from the Renault Kangoo van and findings of fact relating to the DNA evidence; (f) the arrest of Mr Redmond; and (g) the verdict.

Held by the Court that: (a) it was not persuaded that the court erred in permitting the adoption of the evidence without the witnesses being recalled and re-sworn, having already been sworn in the trial within a trial; (b) in its view, on the facts, the processing involved in this case was lawful; (c) the offences were serious and planned over time, and it was open to the District Court judge (and subsequently the trial court) to reach the conclusion that they did and admit the evidence (so far as the warrants were material to that issue); (d) it was not prepared to permit this matter to be re-opened in the Court, whatever happened in the trial court - the case was heard before People (DPP) v Dunbar [2024] IECA 85; and the line of authorities following therefrom - those decisions were binding upon the Court in any event; (e) it was not persuaded, either on any independent issue raised as to the integrity of the Kangoo van, or the quantity of swabs taken, or the lost opportunity to examine the Kangoo van independently, or on any other issue raised when taken separately or cumulatively, that the trial court erred in deeming the DNA evidence admissible - the Court was satisfied that the court of trial considered the evidence in great detail, analysed each fact, found certain facts were established on the evidence and then combined those strands of evidence from which it drew legitimate inferences; (f) it accepted the prosecution submission that the Criminal Law Act 1997 had no relevance on the facts; and (g) the challenges which the appellants made against the findings and reasoning of the trial court in its verdict were not established. The Court held that the trial court engaged in a detailed analysis of the evidence and made findings of fact and inferences from findings of fact which were open to it to make; it proceeded to consider the circumstantial evidence established in the case and ultimately concluded that all reasonable hypothesis of innocence could be excluded and that it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the appellants on the charges proffered. The Court held that those were findings which were open to the trial court to make.

The Court dismissed each of the appellants’ appeals against conviction.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 13 ^th day of January, 2026 by Mr. Justice Patrick McCarthy.

1 This is an appeal against conviction. On 8 November 2021, the appellants were convicted by the Special Criminal Court of false imprisonment, contrary to s. 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (‘the 1997 Act’), and assault causing serious harm, contrary to s. 4 of the 1997 Act. A fourth co-accused was acquitted.

2 The trial commenced on 2 June 2021 and concluded to speeches of Counsel on 6 August 2021. On 8 November 2021, the verdict of the court was delivered.

3 On 20 December 2021, the trial court pronounced the sentence imposed on each appellant. Alan Harte was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment; Alan O'Brien was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment; and Darren Redmond was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment, the final three years of which were suspended on certain terms and conditions.

Background

4 On 17 September 2019, at approximately 18.30, the victim finished work at Quinn Industrial Holdings (‘QIH’), Derrylin, County Fermanagh and drove to his house, situated close-by, at Kinawley. As he drove up a laneway to his house, he saw a large white vehicle in a stationary position which caused him to bring his jeep to a halt. Immediately, this vehicle reversed at speed into the front of the victim's jeep. Two males, who were wearing balaclavas and were dressed in black, exited the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was carrying two cans of clear liquid and both men had cable ties around their arms. The driver smashed the victim's window and both men got into the jeep. A struggle ensued with the victim, who was eventually taken out of his jeep and brought to the back of it. He became aware that a third assailant was present, who was in possession of a Stanley knife which was held to the victim's neck. This man demanded that the victim get into the boot of a black Audi saloon car which had been reversed into the laneway.

5 The victim described the driver of the white car as being slightly taller than himself with a similar body shape, although probably more athletic. In his statement to the investigating guards, he described this man as having blonde hair, although in examination-in-chief he referred to the driver's hair colour as being blonde or light brown. In cross-examination, he accepted that the description of blonde hair was probably more accurate as it was provided closer in time to the events. The victim described the other individual as being of a similar height to himself but slightly slimmer. The third man on the scene was described by the victim as being perhaps slightly taller, a bit heavier, and older than the other two men, as well as having a Dublin accent.

6 The Audi, with the victim in its boot, commenced driving from this location. The third man who had come on the scene was the driver. The man who had been driving the white car was in the back of the Audi and the other man was in the passenger seat.

7 In the course of the journey, the victim managed to open the boot whereupon he attempted to escape. However, he was hit across the face with a wooden object, forced back into boot and material was placed over his head. The man who had been the driver of the white vehicle, and who was now sitting in the back of the Audi car, thereafter held the victim's hands, resulting in the victim noticing that this man was wearing a black top which had a white “Under Armour” logo towards his waist.

8 The victim subsequently heard the driver of the Audi saying to someone on the phone:

“Boss, this man has resisted and we've had to hit him”.

9 As the boot of the vehicle did not close properly, the victim was in a position to describe parts of the journey and some landmarks which he noted along the way. When they arrived at their destination, the victim was taken out of the car and brought through what appeared to be a farmyard into a blue container, which he thought resembled a horsebox.

10 It was made clear to the victim that the reason for his abduction was because of his role as a representative of QIH. It was demanded of him that he and the other representatives of QIH resign from their positions and that the civil litigation relating to QIH be brought to an end. If he did not comply with these demands, it was implied that his family were at risk and details of some of his recent movements and those of his family were referred to.

11 The driver of the white vehicle became concerned regarding DNA evidence being found on the person of the victim. He used a Stanley blade to scrape underneath the victim's fingernails, drawing blood, and cut his fingernails. It was decided that bleach was required to properly carry out this task. Two of the assailants (whom the victim thought were the driver of the Audi and the driver of the white vehicle) left the container for approximately 15 minutes and, on their return, the victim's body was rubbed down with bleach. The victim heard a car starting and moving off after they initially left the container.

12 The driver of the Audi informed the victim that whilst he would be released, it was necessary to “rough him up”. The victim was put sitting on the ground and the driver of the Audi struck the victim's leg twice with a wooden baton, breaking his leg on the second occasion. The victim was cut with a Stanley knife from ear to chin on both sides of his face and was struck on his right side and arm between 12 and 20 times. The letters ‘QIH’ were scored on the victim's chest to his stomach. In the course of these assaults, the demand that the victim resign from QIH was repeatedly made. The victim estimated that he was in the container for approximately 45 minutes.

13 The victim was removed from the container and pushed into the cargo area of a large Ford transit van. Three men accompanied him in this van. The demand that he resign from QIH was again repeated and he was ordered not to go to the guards to tell them that a gang of “Dubs” had done this. The victim was thrown out of the van onto the side of the road. Shortly afterwards, at approximately 20.45, a member of the public found the victim on the roadside at Cloggy Cross, County Cavan.

14 A police investigation began immediately. As this area is in close proximity to the border with...