Cork man loses appeal against conviction for murder of Paul Jones in row over property
Keith O'Hara was convicted by a jury in December 2021 at the Central Criminal Court sitting in Cork and sentenced to life in prison. File picture
The Court of Appeal has rejected an argument that the taking of DNA samples breached the constitutional rights of a man who used a billhook to murder his partner's brother in a family dispute over property.
In dismissing a conviction appeal by Keith O’Hara, aged 47, the court also rejected the argument that search warrants in his case should have been excluded as there was no audio recording of the application for the warrants made by gardaí in the district court.
O’Hara, of Cahergal Avenue, Mayfield, Cork, pleaded not guilty to the murder of Paul Jones and to a second charge of burglary, but he was convicted by a jury in December 2021 at the Central Criminal Court sitting in Cork and sentenced to life in prison by Mr Justice Michael MacGrath.
The trial of O'Hara and co-accused Helen Jones, the deceased’s sister, heard that the murder of Mr Jones arose out of a “dispute” about the family home in Cork that was before the civil court and which had caused a lot of “disharmony”.
Evidence was heard that O’Hara and Helen Jones travelled by taxi to the deceased’s home at Bandon Road in Cork on September 4, 2019, where a heated exchange took place at the front door between the two defendants and Paul Jones. During this exchange, Helen Jones was armed with a knife.
Later that day, both defendants were seen in a distressed state near the deceased’s house. They got a taxi from the scene, with the taxi driver noticing blood in the back of his taxi following the journey, which matched DNA samples later taken from O’Hara while detained.
On September 7, the deceased’s son and two others went to the deceased’s house, where they were unable to gain entry as something was blocking the door. With a neighbour’s assistance, they gained entry and located the body of the deceased.
A pathologist’s report indicated that Mr Jones had sustained 25 stab wounds together with a chop to the head. Two different weapons were used, with a billhook used by O’Hara and a knife by his co-accused.
While the knife was never located, the billhook was found with O'Hara's blood on the handle and the deceased’s blood on the blade.
In launching an appeal against his conviction on Thursday, O’Hara’s legal team, led by Vincent Heneghan SC, argued that the trial judge erred by refusing to exclude the DNA evidence of a sample taken from the appellant by gardaí.
They said this sample was not taken in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act, 2014, as a garda sergeant and superintendent did not mention the grounds upon which authorisation was sought or granted. As a result, it was argued that the sample taken was performed unlawfully and in breach of the appellant’s constitutional right to bodily integrity.
O’Hara’s barristers also claimed that the judge erred by refusing to exclude any evidence recovered on foot of search warrants in the case, as the information given by gardaí in relation to the warrants was sworn in the judge’s chambers rather than in a courtroom. The barristers said that no recording facilities were available in the chambers, and the detective who made the application was unclear as to what oath was administered or taken.
In response to these submissions, the State, led by Jane Hyland SC, submitted that the garda superintendent explained that the authorisation for taking the samples was necessarily grounded on his reasonable suspicion of O’Hara’s involvement and his belief that the samples would tend to confirm or disprove that involvement.
Concerning the search warrants, it was submitted that a garda sergeant attended at the district court with sworn information which set out the grounds for the warrants, so the district court judge was right to grant them.
In delivering the court’s judgment on Thursday, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said that concerning the taking of the DNA samples, the reasonable grounds for obtaining these samples were “plainly and unequivocally present”. He said the garda witnesses were cross-examined and the factual details of the case were clear with a high degree of specificity, so the superintendent had sufficient grounds to make the orders.
Saying that the judge was entitled to make his decision to admit the samples based on the evidence heard, Mr Justice McCarthy ruled that there was no meaningful proposition that the order was unreasonably made.
Concerning the search warrants, Mr Justice McCarthy said there was no requirement for the application by the gardaí to be recorded. He went on to say there was no doubt that the judge reasonably heard the application and rightly gave the warrants on merit.
Mr Justice McCarthy said the court was rejecting the appeal.
In June 2024, co-accused Helen Jones also failed in her attempt to have her conviction overturned, with the Court of Appeal rejecting her bid to rule a search warrant unlawful based on the specific wording of the oath taken by a detective garda before the District Court judge.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
