A man has lost his Supreme Court appeal over his conviction for the murder of another man who was shot outside a house in Co Tipperary.
The five-judge court, in a judgment delivered electronically on Friday, dismissed Maurice Power’s appeal aimed at overturning his conviction for the murder of Shane Rossiter on October 17th, 2012.
Power (36), of Dranganbeg, Kilmoyler, Cahir, had pleaded not guilty to the murder of Mr Rossiter following a house party, where illegal drugs were being taken, in Church Lane, Golden. He was found guilty by a majority Central Criminal Court jury verdict in 2014 and jailed for life.
The prosecution relied on confession statements made by him while in custody at Clonmel Garda Station between December 11th and 15th, 2012. After his conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal, he secured a further appeal to the Supreme Court on points of law of general public importance. One related to the extension of his detention by a District Court judge after he was arrested on suspicion of Mr Rossiter’s murder.
While in detention, Power admitted to gardaí he had shot Mr Rossiter, saying he had feared Mr Rossiter intended to kill him. He claimed his detention by the District Court was unlawful and, as a result, that statement was not admissible. A second issue concerned interpretation of section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993, which provides, where evidence of a confession is uncorroborated, the trial judge should advise the jury to have due regard to that fact.
Giving the unanimous judgment, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley said Power was arrested on December 11th, 2012 and detained until December 13th, in accordance with law, on foot of decisions by senior gardaí. This appeal related only to the lawfulness of the further extension of his detention on December 13th by the District Court. The defence argued that extension was obtained on the basis of incomplete and factually unsound information because the fact Power had begun earlier that day to make admissions in detention had not been taken into account. Ms Justice O’Malley said the District Judge was obliged to make a decision on the evidence and submissions put before him, and neither side informed him Power had begun to make admissions.
If the District Judge came to a rational conclusion on the material before him, it was difficult to see how that could be characterised as unlawful simply because some other piece of evidence might, theoretically, have cast a different light on the issue. The District Court decision was reasonable having regard to the evidence and submissions and the trial judge was thus entitled to find the decision was lawful, she ruled.
Addressing the interpretation of section 10, she said it obliges a trial judge to give particular advice to the jury if evidence of a confession is uncorroborated. The provision goes beyond the evidence the confession was made by the accused and is also concerned with the factual content of the confession.
What is to be assessed is whether or not there is objective and relevant confirmation of that material, she said.
The distinction sought to be drawn by Power between the truth of the confession and the commission of the crime is not valid, she said.
In this case, the trial judge correctly decided a warning concerning uncorroborated confessions was appropriate and correctly informed the jury the case rose or fell on the confession.
She also gave an appropriately worded explanation of the need to examine the other evidence to see whether it confirmed the truth and reliability of the confession but made clear the jury were entitled to convict if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the confession was true.
On the basis of those and other findings, she dismissed the appeal.
