Refused right to appeal

Henny Penny

Registered User
Messages
559
Hi all,

Just wondering in light of the Rachel O'Reilly murder case, the defendant was refused right to appeal ... why? What are the grounds for appeal in a criminal case?

Many thanks,

HP
 
On the radio today, one commentator mentioned that in this particular case, the accused could in fact appeal to the Appeals Court for permission to appeal, if that makes any sense.
 
Yes indeedy.

32.—Leave to appeal shall be granted by the Court of Criminal Appeal in cases where the court is of opinion that a question of law is involved, or where the trial appears to the court to have been unsatisfactory, or there appears to the court to be any other sufficient ground of appeal, and the court shall have power to make all consequential orders it may think fit, including an order admitting the appellant to bail pending the determination of his appeal.
 
I think the judged refused "automatic" leave to appeal but, as above, the convict can still apply to the courts for leave to appeal. Seemingly it's normal in certain cases to refuse leave to appeal.
 
from what the radio stations are saying the defense has 7 days to appeal, but they would need to have good grounds and the appeal would be judged by a number of judges.
 
Irish Times says that the defence has two weeks to apply for leave to appeal. I believe that the appeal could only be on a point of law and if the judge happened to have made some mistake which seems unlikely given what has been reported about his balanced handling of the trial and summing up. On the other hand I am not a lawyer/barrister!
 
As I understand it, his legal team will have to go to the Court of Appeal to "appeal the right to appeal" if you get what I mean.......
 
While I think the accused was probably guilty, I thought the law was innocent until proven guilty ? Where was the evidence to prove he was guilty ? The Birmingham 6 + Guildford 4 were locked up on more evidence.
 
He was innocent until found guilty by a jury of his peers who heard and analysed all of the evidence (and not just the snippets reported in the media) presented in court and decided (unanimously as far as I know) that beyond reasonable doubt he was guilty. You or I may not agree with their decision but that's how the judicial system works.
 
If he had switched off his mobile phone on the morning in question, he would almost certainly have got away with the dastardly deed.
 
well thankfully he didn't! - although after the Robert Houlihan case does it emit a small signal even off, isnt that how they knew where to find him? Scary stuff heard one person say he should have just said he popped home because he forgot something and then he probably would have gotten away with it.
 
In the Robert Houlihan case, the phone ran out of battery power and sent a disconnecting signal to the nearest radio base station. They were able to narrow the search.
 
ah that makes sense. Good letter in the paper today saying all the criminals will now send their phones elsewhere while they commit crimes to give themselves an alibi they can back up!
 
ah that makes sense. Good letter in the paper today saying all the criminals will now send their phones elsewhere while they commit crimes to give themselves an alibi they can back up!

I don't know that this would necessarily provide an alibi. Just because your phone is somewhere doesn't mean you're with it.

In O'Reilly's case, if there was a plausible explanation for why he was in Phibsborough and his phone was in the Naul, he would surely have take the stand to explain why. This wouldn't have given him an alibi but it may have introduced reasonable doubt.
 
ah that makes sense. Good letter in the paper today saying all the criminals will now send their phones elsewhere while they commit crimes to give themselves an alibi they can back up!
Or maybe they'll just use pay as you go (until they bring in mandatory registration - will that be done retrospectively?!?) or nick somebody else's phone.
 
Back
Top