What his defence is likely to focus on for an appeal

ANY appeal made by Pat Quirke against his conviction is likely to focus on decisions made by Judge Eileen Creedon in response to long-running legal arguments made during the longest murder trial in the history of the State.

These legal arguments in the Central Criminal Court occurred in the absence of the jury and, on occasion, included a number of calls that the trial should be abandoned.

His defence is likely to use those same grounds to appeal the verdict: In general, grounds for appeal will centre on applications that the judge may not have given enough weight to some evidence or didn’t focus on a lack of forensic evidence. Here, this could centre on the fact that no murder weapon was found. Another possible ground for appeal could concern the late disclosure of evidence and the Garda investigation. The defence twice asked for the jury to be discharged amid concerns about both issues. Fingerprint evidence had been ignored and photographs lost, the defence said. A third possible ground for appeal could focus on the defence’s request to discharge the jury. This centred on remarks made by the judge in her charge to the jury. The defence claimed its position was harmed when Judge Creedon made comments to the effect that the prosecution did not have to prove the location of Mr Ryan’s death. Quirke’s legal team wanted the jury discharged as it believed the judge’s remarks could not be remedied. Judge Creedon rejected the application but clarified her remarks to jurors. Another possible ground for appeal is the rejection of the defence application for a direction to acquit at the close of the prosecution case. The defence argued that the evidence, taken at its height, was speculative and not sufficient to secure a safe conviction.