Supreme Court rejects bid to have murder conviction declared a miscarriage of justice

A Co Tipperary man who was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of murder and robbery more than 20 years ago has lost his Supreme Court attempt to have his case considered a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the application of Anthony Buck should be struck out as it had no reasonable prospect of succeeding.

Buck, of Garrymore, Clonmel, was 24 when he was convicted of the murder of David Nugent (22) in the grounds of St Joseph’s hospital in Clonmel between 11pm on July 8th and 1pm on July 9th, 1996.

A jury of six women and six men found Buck guilty of the murder charge by a majority verdict of 11 to one. The jury also found Buck guilty of the robbery of cash and goods worth IR£825 from Mr Nugent on the same dates.

Mr Justice John Quirke sentenced Buck to life for the murder and 12 years for the robbery, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The trial heard Mr Nugent died after sustaining 12 stab wounds and a severe blow to his head after a rock was dropped on it in the hospital grounds.

The five judge Supreme Court, in a judgement delivered electronically by Mr Justice Peter Charleton on Friday, turned down Buck’s application to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his application to claim a miscarriage of justice under the Criminal Procedure Act 1993.

Mr Justice Charleton referred to the complex course of events surrounding the case. The Court of Appeal in 1999 had dismissed Buck’s application to appeal his conviction but he was allowed to bring a matter of law of exceptional public importance to the Supreme Court.

Every effort

In 2002, the Supreme Court dismissed that case finding that every effort had been made by the gardaí to provide him with a solicitor and the evidence taken during garda interviews was admissible. In 2014, Buck applied to the Court of Appeal contending there were new or newly discovered facts pertaining to his case amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

The following year the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and he applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal but was turned down.

In 2018, the Court of Appeal accepted the DPP’s motion to dismiss Buck’s application relating to the miscarriage of justice on the grounds that no new or newly discovered facts were raised in the application and as a result it was bound to fail.

Buck last year was granted leave by the Supreme Court to appeal issues concerning the distinction between new and newly discoverable facts. Buck, a lay litigant, presented 13 different grounds on the matter but Mr Justice Charleton said no material had been put forward to support a miscarriage of justice application.

The Supreme Court ruled, such as it is, the application does not include new or newly discovered facts as defined by the superior courts and as a result the DPP’s motion to strike out the application must succeed.