JOE O’REILLY, who was found guilty of the murder of his wife Rachel at their Co Dublin home in 2004, yesterday lost his appeal against his conviction.
The three-judge Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal by the 36-year-old father of two on all grounds. O’Reilly was in court when judgment was delivered yesterday morning.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, presiding and sitting with Mr Justice Roderick Murphy and Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, said O’Reilly had failed to make out any ground to render his conviction unsafe.
The body of Rachel O’Reilly (30) was found in the bedroom of the couple’s home in The Naul by her mother, Rose Callaly, on the morning of October 4th, 2004. She was killed as a result of receiving several blows to the head from a blunt instrument.
O’Reilly, Lambay View, Baldarragh, The Naul, was convicted unanimously by a jury of murder and was jailed for life by Mr Justice Barry White.
In his appeal last December, counsel for O’Reilly argued evidence of mobile phone records and data relating to the location of O’Reilly’s mobile phone on the date of his wife’s murder should not have been permitted go before the jury.
It was submitted there was no evidence before the court that O2 Ireland was a licensed phone operator under the terms of the Postal and Telecommunications Service Act 1983 and therefore the phone evidence was not legally before the jury.
In its judgment, the appeal court said the jury was entitled to conclude that O2 Ireland was a relevant licensed operator at the relevant time having heard evidence that O2 Ireland was long established as a telecommunications operator in a strongly regulated industry. As a result, the jury was entitled to take into account all the prosecution evidence in relation to phones, including O’Reilly’s own mobile.
O’Reilly had also argued that e-mails from a computer alleged by the prosecution to be his should have been excluded on grounds their evidential value was outweighed by their prejudicial value as they were sent in June 2004, several months before Ms O’Reillys death. It was argued that that time was too far removed from the events of October 2004.
The appeal court ruled the e-mails were admissible and relevant, and there were “no grounds” to conclude this evidence “had any prejudicial value that would outweigh its probative value”.
The court said e-mails which showed the state of the marriage, including an e-mail with the words: “Me + Rachel + marriage = over!!!” and others referring to his wife in disparaging terms, alluding to divorce and the custody of children, were relevant evidence.
The fact the e-mails were sent four months prior to the murder did not affect their probative value and they were sent at a time sufficiently proximate to the crime.
It was also submitted the trial judge should not have allowed evidence of three interviews with O’Reilly while in Garda custody to go before the jury in a manner that it was clear to the jury that he remained silent for most of the time he was interviewed.
The court ruled Mr Justice White was correct to admit this evidence, including the start and concluding times of the interviews. The trial judge had left the jury in no doubt no adverse inference could be drawn from any exercise of a right to silence by the accused, the appeal court said.
On another argument that a voluntary witness statement by O’Reilly of October 6th, 2004, should also have been excluded because he was at that stage a suspect, the appeal court ruled the judge had correctly exercised his discretion in allowing that statement to be used.
O’Reilly’s final ground of appeal contended that evidence relating to CCTV footage about movements of cars on the date of the murder was inadmissible and flawed as it involved comparisons only with a Fiat Marea car, the type of car driven by O’Reilly, and no other car.
The court ruled that ground was also misconceived and said the failure to carry out a comparison with any other cars was irrelevant. The weight to be attached to the CCTV evidence was a matter for the jury and there was no reason to conclude it was inadmissible, the court found.