The Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) has overturned the conviction and eight-year sentence of a Dublin man on a charge of unlawful possession of firearms with intent to endanger life. A retrial was ordered in the case of Mr Mark Desmond.
Mr Desmond had also been charged with the double murder of two young men whose bodies were found in the Grand Canal in Co Kildare, but those charges were dropped by the DPP at the outset of his trial.
After sacking his legal team, Mr Desmond (29), of Lally Road, Ballyfermot, represented himself before the Central Criminal Court in late 2002. His application for an adjournment of the case at the time was refused.
Scheduled to last four days, the trial ran for 16 and ended with Mr Desmond being convicted on December 12th, 2002, of the unlawful possession of four firearms with intent to endanger life at Lally Road between October 1st, 1999, and February 17th, 2000.
During the trial Mr Desmond informed the jury that the DPP was not proceeding with two charges against him of the murder of Darren Carey (20) and Patrick Murray (19).
Both young men were shot in suspected drug-related killings and their bodies dumped in the Grand Canal at Karneystown, Co Kildare, between December 19th, 1999, and January 10th, 2000.
Giving the CCA's judgment on Mr Desmond's appeal, Mr Justice McCracken said the court was satisfied that the refusal of either of the judges who dealt with the case in November 2002 to consider Mr Desmond's application for an adjournment had prevented him from obtaining a fair trial in accordance with the law and was contrary to the principles of natural and constitutional justice.
However, he stressed, the CCA was not saying that the adjournment application ought to have been granted.
This was a matter within the discretion of the judge, having heard and considered relevant arguments, and there might be very many applications where adjournments ought to be refused.
Indeed, this may have been one such case.
However, the CCA considered it would be unsafe to allow the conviction to stand in light of the refusal to consider the application for the adjournment.
This was particularly so as the jury, in the course of the application for an adjournment, had become aware of the fact that Mr Desmond had been charged with murder, which undoubtedly could have influenced them against him.
Mr Justice McCracken, sitting with Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Justice Herbert, said the court recognised that the fact this knowledge came to the jury's attention was due to the conduct of his case by Mr Desmond himself.
Nevertheless, it was a matter which influenced the appeals court to believe that it would be unsafe to allow the conviction to stand.