Cork woman appeals conviction for the murder of her brother over childhood home
Helen Jones (pictured) was convicted in December 2021 by a unanimous jury verdict of the murder of her 52-year-old brother Paul Jones, at his home on Bandon Road in Cork on September 4, 2019.
A 56-year-old woman serving a life sentence for the murder of her brother following a "family dispute" over their childhood home has appealed her conviction arguing that a search warrant granted by a district court judge was not valid.
Helen Jones, last of Cahergal Avenue, Mayfield, Cork, was convicted in December 2021 by a unanimous jury verdict of the murder of her 52-year-old brother Paul Jones, at his home on Bandon Road in Cork on September 4, 2019. A co-accused in the case, her then partner Keith O’Hara, was also found guilty of the murder.
Jones, who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court sitting in Cork following a month-long trial, was sentenced by Mr Justice Michael MacGrath to the mandatory term of life imprisonment.
The trial heard Paul Jones was found inside the door of a house in Bandon Road in Cork wearing only his underwear and covered in blood. The trial heard there was a “family dispute” about the family home at Cahergal Avenue, Ballyvolane in Cork which was before the civil court and which had caused a lot of “disharmony” in the family.
On the night of September 4, 2019, Jones and O’Hara took a taxi to the property at Bandon Road and an altercation occurred with Mr Jones at the door of the house. Eyewitness accounts stated that all three ended up in the hallway inside the front door where the altercation continued before the front door shut.
A post-mortem examination revealed Mr Jones sustained 25 stab wounds to his body. The cause of death was noted as multiple stab wounds and a chop wound to the head. His body was not discovered until approximately two or three days after his death, the court heard.
At the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, Brendan Grehan SC, for Jones, argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the search warrant, issued on September 10, 2019, was lawful and erred in law in admitting evidence gathered on foot thereof.
It was submitted that the trial judge erred in ruling that he was satisfied that a detective garda had sworn on oath the information put before the district court judge, during evidence and submissions in a voir dire at trial.
The court heard that on December 2, 2021, in a voir dire, Detective Sergeant Joe Young gave evidence of his application for a search warrant made on September 10, 2019, at Cork District Court in relation to a property at Cahergal Avenue, Ballyvolane in Cork, where Helen Jones was residing at the time. A search warrant was subsequently issued on foot of this application and a number of items were removed from the house.
The appellant submitted that there was no mention from either the detective sergeant or prosecution counsel that the information given to the district court judge was given on oath as is required by the legislation under which the detective sergeant was applying.
Mr Grehan told the three-judge court that there were effectively two matters that arise in this case; the first related to what a sworn oath is in terms of an applicant who is seeking a warrant and the second is that matters of this nature are not recorded in the district court which means there can be a “deficit of information” when it comes to exploring these matters.
Mr Grehan said during the trial the detective sergeant was cross-examined and accepted when it was put to him by counsel that he swore an oath that he would well and truly answer any questions touching upon the application.
He said he spoke to the district court judge about the case but confirmed the judge did not ask him any questions. Asked if any notes were made by the judge of the issuing of the warrant, the garda replied: “I don’t believe so”.
Counsel said submissions were then made at trial to the effect that there wasn’t any information that there was sworn evidence.
Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy asked if, in effect, what was being argued was that the oath taken was meaningless because the district court judge did not ask any questions. “Does that matter?” she asked.
“In my submission it must matter because we have the rule of law and statutory requirements and they have to be adhered to,” said Mr Grehan.
In relation to the lack of recording in relation to the application for the search warrant, Mr Grehan said as there was no record kept, “we are relying on someone’s recollection…as imperfect as it is”.
He highlighted a Supreme Court ruling in relation to a case related to a search warrant in which the court stated that it is “best practice” to keep a record when a search warrant is granted. He said the central point was “how can you review something successfully afterwards if there is a doubt to precisely what happened because there is no record”.
“There should be no room for dispute at all about what happened,” counsel added. Mr Grehan said he believed the matters were interrelated because “if there was a record you wouldn’t have the difficulties of what was said arising”.
Jane Hyland SC, for the DPP, submitted that the trial judge was correct in finding that the warrant was valid.
Ms Hyland said the search warrant application was before a district court judge, not a peace commissioner, and the information provided by the detective sergeant was a particularly detailed submission. She said in addition to the detailed grounds set out, the information was sworn in three separate locations with his signature.
Counsel said the fact the oath was in a form where the detective garda swore to answer any questions did not render the oath meaningless.
“In circumstances where there were very detailed grounds set out, it was a matter for the district court judge to decide whether he needed any further information,” she said. “The fact that he didn’t should not be a cause for concern.”
Counsel said the relevant legislation does not set out the basis of which an oath is to be formulated and insofar as the district court judge was concerned the fact that no questions were asked does not, in itself, render the oath invalid.
In respect of the recording of the oath, Ms Hyland said there is a note of how the search warrant was applied for.
“I say that the court in this instance had no difficulties in respect of that, there was a very clear basis on which the search warrant was granted. The district court judge was an impartial arbitrator of the case that was before him,” said Ms Hyland.
“I say that the information constitutes a record on the basis on which the warrant was applied for.” Counsel went on to say that whilst she acknowledged that a recording is “best practice”, the lack of a recording does not render the search warrant invalid or the fruits of the search inadmissible.
Ms Justice Kennedy said the court would reserve judgement in the matter.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
