The People (At the Suit of the DPP) v Dean Bradley & Jason Bradley
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IECA 63 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Record Nos: 215/18 & 216/18 |
[2022] IECA 63
Edwards J.
McCarthy J.
Kennedy J.
Record Nos: 215/18 & 216/18
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Convictions – Murder – Unsatisfactory trials – Appellants seeking to appeal against convictions – Whether the appellants’ trials were satisfactory
Facts: The appellants, Mr D Bradley and Mr J Bradley, on the 12th of July 2018 were each convicted by a jury at the Central Criminal Court sitting at the Criminal Courts of Justice, Parkgate Street, Dublin 8, of a single count of murder contrary to common law and as provided for by s. 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964. They were each subsequently sentenced to the mandatory penalty of imprisonment for life. Both appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal against their said convictions. The grounds put forward were as follows: (1) (both appellants) the trial judge erred in law and fact in failing to discharge the jury when asked to do so by defence counsel for Mr J Bradley in circumstances which were unfair to the accused where the court revisited the issue of a directed verdict in relation to Mr R Bradley and ultimately granting it after the closing speeches on behalf of the prosecution and the closing speeches on behalf of Mr P Bradley, Mr J Bradley and Mr D Bradley; (2) (both appellants) the trial judge erred in fact and law in upholding the extension of the detention of the accused granted by Chief Superintendent Wheatley; (3) (both appellants) the trial judge erred in law and fact in allowing Ms Cusack to give evidence during the course of the trial having regard to the circumstances in which her account came about and the failures of disclosure in relation to it; (4) (both appellants) the trial judge erred in law and fact in purporting to allow the 3D Scanner evidence to be admitted on a conditional basis and should have excluded it simpliciter; (5) (both appellants) the trial judge erred in fact and law in failing to give a specific warning in relation to the evidence of Ms Cusack; (6) (Mr D Bradley) the fairness of the trial process was vitiated by late disclosure and service of evidence by the prosecution which occurred shortly before and during the currency of the trial (this ground of appeal was not ultimately pursued); (7) (Mr D Bradley) the trial judge failed or refused to recharge the Jury on the inappropriate example he gave in his charge in relation to the standard of proof; i.e. running over someone with a car; (7a) (Mr J Bradley) the trial judge erred in fact and law in failing and/or refusing to charge the jury on Joint Enterprise (this ground of appeal was also not ultimately pursued); (8) (both appellants) the trial judge failed or refused to recharge the jury on the issue of the Griffeen Valley Nursing Home CCTV; (8a) ( Mr J Bradley) the trial judge erred in fact and law in failing to direct the jury on the defence of provocation in accordance with the request of counsel on behalf of Jason Bradley and with the agreement of counsel for the prosecution to the effect that the defence of provocation can arise where a defendant either has lost the capacity to form the requisite intent or has actually formed the requisite intent to kill or cause serious harm; (9) (Mr D Bradley) the trial judge erred in recharging the jury in relation to the expert evidence of the pathologist, Dr Curtis; (10) (Mr D Bradley) the trial judge erred in recharging the jury in relation to the verdicts which were open to the Jury; (11) (Mr D Bradley) the trial judge erred in the recharge on the evidence in relation to the number of impacts to the deceased and did so in a way that was prejudicial to the accused; and (12) (Mr D Bradley) the charge and recharge of the trial judge in relation to the accused’s defence of accident was deficient.
Held by the Court that the appellants’ respective trials were satisfactory and that the jury’s verdicts with respect to the appellants were safe.
The Court held that the appeals must therefore be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 10th day of March, 2022 by Mr Justice Edwards.
On the 12th of July 2018 the appellants were each convicted by a jury at the Central Criminal Court sitting at the Criminal Courts of Justice, Parkgate Street, Dublin 8, of a single count of murder contrary to common law and as provided for by s.4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1964. They were each subsequently sentenced to the mandatory penalty of imprisonment for life.
Both appellants have appealed against their said convictions and this judgment addresses those appeals.
The deceased was a Mr Neil Reilly. He was killed in the early hours of the morning of the 18th of January 2017 at Esker Glebe in Lucan, Co Dublin. The appellants, Dean and Jason Bradley, who are brothers, were both present when he was killed, as was another brother Ryan Bradley, and the appellants' father Paul Bradley.
In broad outline, the prosecution's case was that earlier on that date the deceased, accompanied by another man, L. McN, had gone to the Bradleys' home at No 1 Liscarne Gardens, Lucan, which was in a housing estate, and at 3.51am had discharged a shotgun at the house, damaging a window. The deceased and his companion then fled the scene of the shooting in a Mazda car. Within minutes Mr Paul Bradley and his three sons, set off in two vehicles in search of the Mazda, which they quickly succeeded in locating. The Mazda was then pursued for a time by the Bradleys' vehicles and during this pursuit it subsequently crashed at Esker Glebe. The driver of the Mazda, who was not the deceased, ran away from the scene of the crash. However, the deceased, who had been the passenger in the Mazda, was intercepted by one or more of the Bradleys, and failed to achieve a similar escape. The prosecution's case was that the deceased was then set upon by the Bradleys (who it was contended were acting in concert) and was assaulted in various ways, including being hit by chopping blows to the head with a sharp implement (admitted to by Jason Bradley, who sought at the trial to rely on provocation); by being kicked (admitted to by Paul Bradley); and being driven over in a vehicle (admitted to by Dean Bradley — although he maintained that he had done so by accident, a contention vehemently contested by the prosecution on the basis of other eyewitness accounts which maintained that Dean Bradley's vehicle had driven over the deceased two, or possibly three, times), as a result of all of which he sustained injuries, some of which were serious and led to his subsequent death.
At the trial there was evidence from a State Pathologist, Dr Michael Curtis. In his testimony he stated ( inter alia):
“At post mortem examination, this man was seen to have been struck approximately seven blows with a chopping type implement. Two blows had been delivered to the head, one on either side and these were associated with underlying skull fractures and injuries to the brain. On the right side the brain was contused or bruised, while on the left side it was lacerated and contused. There were further wounds from a similar implement to the right upper arm region, the right forearm region, the left flank, the back of the right shoulder and the mid-line of the back… In addition, there was a severe crush injury to the pelvis consistent with his having been run over by a vehicle. This interpretation is reinforced by numerous parchmented or brush abrasions, otherwise known as friction burns on the body. These would indicate that he was dragged or rolled by a moving vehicle… In addition, there was evidence of crush injuries to the chest with fractures of the left clavicle and of multiple ribs on both sides of the chest, some at multiple sites. There was associated bilateral pulmonary contusional injury, or bruising to the lungs and multiple lacerations to the liver. In the context of the use of a mechanical resuscitation device these thoracic injuries and liver injuries may be attributable to attempts at resuscitation … but it could also be due to it being crushed by a vehicle.”
Dr Curtis confirmed that the cause of death was in the form of “ chop injuries to the skull, along with sharp force injuries to the trunk and right upper limb and a crush injury to the pelvis.” Probed as to whether the deceased could have been run over more than once, he said that this was possible although there was no evidence to indicate that. He further stated that the injuries sustained from either the chopping blows, or the running over, would have been sufficient alone to cause the deceased's death.
The evidence established that following the incident the Bradleys returned home, with Paul and Jason Bradley going directly there in one vehicle (a Mercedes jeep), and Dean and Ryan going there in the other vehicle (the vehicle which had been driven over the deceased during the incident, a black BMW), but going indirectly via Rathcoole where they stopped over at the Bradley family's business premises, Bravo Trans. While there, they swapped vehicles (for another black BMW) before proceeding on to the family home at No 1 Liscarne Gardens. The routes used, and the times taken, by the vehicles involved, on their respective journeys from the Bradley family home to the scene of the killing at Esker Glebe, and back again in one case direct, and in the other case indirectly, were established in evidence using CCTV recordings harvested by the gardaí from cameras at various locations, and other evidence gathered in the course of the investigation.
The gardaí, who had received a report of the shooting, quickly suspected a link between it and the subsequent incident at Esker Glebe in which Neil Reilly suffered fatal injuries. In those...
To continue reading
Request your trial