Irish Court of Criminal Appeal

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Criminal Appeal >> D.P.P.-v- Gerard McKeever [2005] IECCA 142 (21 December 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2005/C142.html
Cite as: [2005] IECCA 142

[New search] [Help]

Judgment Title: D.P.P.-v- Gerard McKeever

Neutral Citation: [2005] IE CCA 142

Court of Criminal Appeal Record Number: 141/03

Date of Delivery: 21/12/2005

Court: Court of Criminal Appeal

Composition of Court: Denham J., Gilligan J., Haugh J.

Judgment by: Denham J.

Status of Judgment: Approved

Judgments by	Result	Concurring	Dissenting
Denham J.	Allow application

Outcome: Allow application

- 3 -

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

[C.C.A. No. 141 of 2003]

Denham J.
Gilligan J.
Haugh J.

Between/

The People at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

and

Gerard McKeever

Applicant

Judgment delivered on the 21st day of December 2005 by Denham J.

1. Gerald McKeever, the applicant/appellant, hereafter referred to as the applicant, was convicted in the Central Criminal Court on the 15th July, 2003 of the offence of the murder of Glen Dunne, and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. The applicant has filed papers in this Court seeking leave to appeal the said conviction.
3. The matter before the Court at this time is a motion seeking disclosure of documentation regarding the rape conviction of Martin Dunne and the possible connection with Glen Dunne, the victim in this murder conviction.
4. The terms of the motion before the Court are that the applicant seeks orders:
1. Directing the Director of Public Prosecutions to make disclosure to the applicant of all matters to include statements, documents, letters, papers, writing, samples, exhibits, records and results of tests and any other matters in the possession or procurement of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Garda Síochána or the Department for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or any Agency or department of the State arising from or resulting from an association with the investigation of the offences of rape, assault and/or burglary in respect of which Martin Dunne now of Wheatfield Prison, Clondalkin County Dublin was convicted in the month of September December 2004 before the Central Criminal Court and in particular in relation to all or any participation in or involvement with the said events of one Glen Dunne, deceased.

2. An Order directing and requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions to take all necessary steps to achieve the preservation of and availability to the applicant and his advisors of all samples, records, test results, DNA or otherwise and any matter of thing relevant to the connection of the deceased, Glen Dunne, with the events forming the basis of the conviction of Martin Dunne on rape/sexual assault/burglary at the Central Criminal court between September and December 2004.

5. When the issue of the requested preservation order was opened by counsel for the applicant, counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that there was no need for a preservation order as the State did not intend to destroy any of the materials referred to. Consequently, in view of the State’s position, it is not necessary for the Court to determine the issue of a preservation order.
6. The sole issue before the Court is the application made on behalf of the applicant for the disclosure of the balance of the file in the Martin Dunne case.
7. Neither the substantive issues arising on the application of the applicant for leave to appeal from the conviction, nor any issue relating to an application to adduce additional evidence for such an appeal, are before this Court. Those are matters to be determined by a Court at a later stage, and no views are expressed on those matters, nor should any views be inferred from this decision.
8. This Court was informed that part of the file of the case of Martin Dunne has already been given to counsel for the applicant. In view of the circumstances, i.e. that part of the file has already been made available to counsel for the applicant, and that the State has agreed to preserve all the evidence on the file (including the forensic samples), the Court is satisfied that Counsel for the applicant should be entitled to see the balance of the file, in the particular circumstances of this case. Consequently, the Court would grant the application insofar as it refers to the disclosure to counsel for the applicant of the balance of the file in the Martin Dunne case.