Court of Appeal dismisses murder appeal, upholding Special Criminal Court's findings on evidence contamination and witness competence.

THE COURT OF APPEAL

APPROVED

NO REDACTION NEEDED

[2025] IECA 255

Record No: 254/2022

Kennedy J. Burns J. O’Moore J.

Between/

THE PEOPLE (AT THE SUIT OF

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS)

Respondent

V

ROBERT REDMOND

Appellant

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice O’Moore on the 20th day of November, 2025.

Introduction

1. Before this Court is an appeal brought by Mr. Robert Redmond (“the appellant”) against his conviction by the Special Criminal Court on one count of murder contrary to common law, one count of assault contrary to s. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, one count of possession of a firearm contrary to s. 15(1)(a) of the Firearms Act, 1925, as substituted by s. 42 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006, as amended by s. 35 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2007, and one count of possession of ammunition contrary to s. 15(1)(a) of the Firearms Act, 1925, as substituted by s. 42 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006, as amended by s.

35 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2007.

2. The appellant pleaded not guilty to all four counts and proceeded to trial on the 15th of June 2022.

3. On the 19th of December 2022 the Court below sentenced the appellant as follows: a. Count 1: Murder contrary to common law – life imprisonment. b. Count 2: Assault contrary to s. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 – five years’ imprisonment. c. Count 3: Possession of a firearm contrary to s. 15(1)(a) of the Firearms Act, 1925, as substituted by s. 42 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006, as amended by s. 35 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2007 – 12 years’ imprisonment. d. Count 4: Possession of ammunition contrary to s. 15(1)(a) of the Firearms Act, 1925, as substituted by s. 42 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006, as amended by s. 35 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2007 – 12 years’ imprisonment. The sentences on Counts 2, 3, and 4, were all to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on Count 1. All sentences were backdated to the 26th of October 2020.

4. The appellant initially appealed his conviction on the basis that the Court below erred in excluding the possibility of a key exhibit being contaminated, in finding that the re-arrest of the appellant on the 15th of June 2020 pursuant to s. 30(a)(1) of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 (as amended) was lawful, in permitting Detective Garda Anthony James Cagney to proffer opinion evidence when he was not competent to do so, and in making findings of fact that were unsupported by the evidence.

Factual Background

5. On the 17th of January 2020 at approximately 11:50am, a dark coloured Citroën C4 motor vehicle entered Madigan’s Yard at Kileek Lane in Swords. The vehicle was captured on CCTV cameras which were mounted on or near the entrance to the Yard. Two minutes later a Citroën C4 was captured on CCTV exiting the Yard.

6. At 11:58am a Mercedes which was owned by Mr. Wolverson (the deceased) entered the Yard through the entrance gate and turned left into the Yard car park. Mr. Wolverson was travelling in the Mercedes at this time. Approximately one minute later a dark coloured Citroën C4 re-entered the Yard and travelled in the same direction as the Mercedes. Less than one minute later the Citroën C4 was captured on CCTV footage exiting Madigan’s Yard via Kileek Lane. It is contended that the registration plate of the Citroën C4 can be identified on one piece of CCTV footage as reading ‘151-D-34526’.

7. In the period between when the Citroën C4 re-entered Madigan’s Yard and when it exited, Mr. Wolverson was shot several times while sitting in his Mercedes. Mr. Wildman (the injured party) also sustained gunshot injuries to his lower back.

8. Mr. Wolverson was treated at the scene by first responders and subsequently taken to hospital. Mr. Wolverson did not recover from his injuries and passed away 13 months later on the 21st of February 2021.

9. No eyewitness evidence has been advanced that either of the accused were in Madigan’s Yard at the time of the shooting. Mr. Wildman did not provide a statement to An Garda Síochána and did not give evidence. The firearm used in the shooting was not recovered. The evidence recovered from the scene which was forensically analysed consisted of a number of discharged bullets and broken glass. Neither the discharged bullets nor the glass fragments from the shattered windows of the Mercedes were forensically linked to the appellant (e.g. by DNA or fingerprint match). No discharged cartridges were recovered.

10. Shortly after this incident the Citroën C4 was set on fire at Greenwood Avenue in Donaghmede.

11. At approximately 12:25pm on the 17th of January 2020 the appellant was arrested by Garda Michael Thomas McGuinness; this was approximately thirty minutes after the incident in question. A brown paper bag was placed around the appellant’s hands at the time of his arrest by Sergeant Leo Clayton. The appellant was conveyed to Coolock Garda Station and arrived at the station at approximately 12:35pm. The appellant was detained and processed in accordance with the custody regulations. He received his notice of rights, was searched, and had a non-intimate DNA sample taken from him. The appellant was taken to an interview room at approximately 1:35pm.

12. Garda Michael McCarthy took a gunshot residue sample from the appellant while he was detained at Coolock Garda Station. Garda McCarthy also seized a number of items of clothing from the appellant for the purpose of forensic examination. The exhibits seized and bagged by Garda McCarthy included a black North Face jacket (“MM1”), a white Nike half tip top, a white Nike T-shirt, black socks, dark coloured tracksuit bottoms, black runners, the evidence bag which had been placed around the appellant’s hands at the time of his arrest, and the actual gun shot residue sample taken from the appellant’s hands. The exhibits were initially placed into standard brown paper evidence bags which were stapled across the top. The exhibits were bagged at Coolock Garda Station.

13. The exhibits officer for the investigation was located at Swords Garda Station and consequently it was necessary for Garda McCarthy to transport the bagged exhibits from Coolock Garda Station to Swords Garda Station. Garda McCarthy placed the bagged exhibits in the boot of a Garda car which was then driven by another garda to Swords Garda Station. He was unable to recall if this was a marked or an unmarked Garda car.

14. Upon arrival, Garda McCarthy removed the exhibits from the boot of the car and carried them inside the garda station. Garda McCarthy sat at a computer in the public office and began logging the bagged exhibits into the PULSE system. He placed some of the bagged exhibits on the table and some on the ground by his feet. Shortly after arriving at Swords Garda Station, Sergeant Warren O’Sullivan informed Garda McCarthy that the exhibits were incorrectly bagged; where there is a possibility that exhibits have been exposed to firearms residue, the gardaí are required to place those exhibits in sealed nylon bags.

15. Garda McCarthy asked around about nylon bags but was only able to acquire one. At approximately 5.05pm he removed exhibit MM1 from its stapled paper evidence bag and placed it in the nylon bag. This took place in Swords Garda Station approximately two and a half hours after the exhibit had been taken from the appellant. The exhibits officer then accompanied Garda McCarthy back to Coolock Garda Station where the remaining exhibits were rebagged in the appropriate nylon bags and subsequently handed over to the exhibits officer. All exhibits were again placed in the boot of a Garda car for the return drive to Coolock Garda Station. The remaining exhibits were rebagged at approximately 6.50pm.

16. The exhibits bagged by Garda McCarthy, which had by this point been rebagged in sealed nylon bags, were subsequently analysed by Dr. John O’Shaughnessy of Forensic Science Ireland. Dr. O’Shaughnessy discovered firearms residue on exhibit MM1. He did not discover firearms residue on the samples taken from the appellant’s face or hands. Dr. O’ Shaughnessy offered his opinion that, if one of the appellants or the co-accused was the person who pulled the trigger in Madigan’s Yard, then the number of particles of firearms residue on exhibit MM1 would indicate that the appellant was more likely to be the shooter.

Notice of Appeal

17. The appellant put forward a number of grounds on which he seeks to appeal his conviction:

• Ground 2: “The Court erred in fact and law in admitting into evidence the testimony of Dr. O’Shaughnessy in relation to Exhibit MM1”.

• Ground 3: “The Court erred in fact and law in admitting into evidence the opinion of Dr. O’Shaughnessy regarding the likelihood of… the Appellant herein having a used a

(sic) firearm in the shooting of the deceased.”

• Ground 4: “The Court erred in fact and in law in excluding beyond reasonable doubt the possibility of Exhibit MM1 having been contaminated between the point at which it was seized by Garda McCarthy at 14.21 on the 20th January 2020 and the point at which it was forensically examined.”

• Ground 5: “The Court erred in fact and in law in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the deposit of firearms residue on Exhibit MM1 had occurred in a period 24 hours prior to it being seized by Garda McCarthy at 14.21 on the 20th January 2020.”

• Ground 6: “The Court erred in fact and in law in concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the identification of firearms residue on Exhibit MM1 arose from the presence of the Appellant at the shooting of the deceased in Madigan’s Yard on the 20th January 2020, whether as the person who discharged a firearm or not.”

• Ground 7: “The Court erred in fact and law in deeming the re-arrest of the Appellant on the 15th June 2020 pursuant to section 30(A)(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 (as amended) to be lawful.”

• Ground 9: “The Court erred in law by permitting Detective Garda Anthony James Cagney to proffer opinion evidence when he was not competent and/or entitled to so do.”

• Ground 10: “The Court erred in fact in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that there were two persons present in the Citroen motor vehicle bearing registration number 151D34526, which said finding was unsupported by the evidence.”

18. Grounds 1 and 8 were no longer being pursued by the time the appellant’s submissions were received. Grounds 2-6 all relate to the exhibit MM1, which was the black North Face jacket on which Dr. O’Shaughnessy found firearms residue during forensic examination.

Written Submissions on Appeal

Potential Contamination of Exhibit MM1

19. The appellant submits that there was a real risk of contamination of MM1 due to the manner in which it was bagged. The appellant contends that: “Exhibit MM1 was incorrectly treated and retained from the moment it was taken from Mr. Redmond. This exhibit was processed and packaged incorrectly and as a result the Court should not have admitted this evidence as it could not excluded (sic) the real risk of contamination having regard to the evidence of Garda McCarthy… …the potential for contamination of MM1 with Gunshot Residue from another source could not have be (sic) ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt.”

20. The appellant further submits that: “the manner in which the exhibit MM1 was treated and retained… renders the evidence of Dr. O’ Shaughnessy unsafe and his findings ought not to have been admitted to the Court in its role as jurors and ultimately in the determination of the ultimate issue.”

21. In response, the respondent: “respectfully submits that the provenance and preservation of exhibit MM1 was established in evidence beyond reasonable doubt and any suggestion of contamination was speculative at best.”

Findings of Fact by the Court

22. The appellant submits that the Court below erred in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that firearms residue had been deposited on MM1 in a period 24 hours before it was seized by Garda McCarthy, and in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearms residue arose from the presence of the appellant at the shooting of the deceased in Madigan’s Yard.

23. The appellant contends that this finding by the Court “is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence… There is no evidence whatsoever which:-

(i) Places the appellant in Madigan’s yard.

(ii) The Court has in effect leaped to an adverse conclusion and a finding of guilt having placed the Appellant at Madigan’s yard when there is no evidential basis to do so.

(iii) The Court has failed to exclude the possibility of secondary transfer of gun residue onto the appellants jacket exhibit MM1 at the location of arrest or elsewhere.”

24. In response, the respondent submits that other circumstantial evidence such as CCTV footage: “provide[s] an evidential basis upon which the Court could infer that the Appellant was present in the Citroën C4 vehicle in Madigan’s Yard and could further infer that he was integrally involved in the fatal shooting that took place there… The Respondent respectfully submits that the Appellant’s assertion that the possibility of secondary transfer of firearm residue was not excluded by the triers of fact, is to elevate mere speculation to the status of reasonable possibility.”

Re-arrest of the Appellant on the 15th of June 2020

25. The appellant submits that: “the learned District Court Judge was misled on the strength of the facts in particular the facts represented as ‘new information’ insofar as the District Judge was appraised of certain matters relating to the evidence which were entirely speculative and based on an investigative working theory… It is submitted this renders the entire process of obtaining the arrest warrant flawed and unreliable and the subsequent re-arrest of Robert Redmond pursuant to section 30 (A) (1) of the offences against the State Act 1939 (sic) as substituted by section 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2009 unlawful.”

26. In response, the respondent asserts that: “while certain aspects of the information put before the District Court Judge may have been inaccurate, when considered in the context of the extensive corpus of the information that was accurate, there existed no error which may have resulted in the misleading of the District court Judge to an extent that the lawful basis for the exercise of his jurisdiction to issue the warrant pursuant to section 30A was removed.”

Court’s Analysis & Decision

27. At the opening of the appeal, counsel for the appellant abandoned Ground 7, which related to the appellant’s re-arrest. As noted at paragraph 18 of this judgment (and expressly accepted by counsel) the remaining substantive grounds of appeal all related to the black North Face jacket. With regard to that exhibit, counsel effectively distilled his appeal into three arguments;

(a) The potential for contamination of the jacket;

(b) The opinion of Dr. O’Shaughnessy that the appellant had discharged the firearm;

and

(c) The findings of the court below as to the timing and location of the deposit of gunshot residue on the jacket.

28. No legal authorities were deployed, by either side, in respect of these matters save for a reference in the written submissions of the DPP to a general proposition contained in People (DPP) v M [2015] JIC 2711. This was in contrast to (the abandoned) Ground 7, in respect of which there had been a meaningful dispute on the law. This appeal is to be decided, therefore, by reference to general principles and a close examination of the evidence on the disputed issues.

29. With regard to the first of the arguments, the facts are not in dispute. Exhibit MM1was initially bagged in an unsatisfactory manner, in that it was placed in a brown paper evidence bag, sealed with three or four staples across the open mouth of the bag, and only later placed in a sealed nylon bag (which should have been done in the first place). It was accepted by the relevant officer who had custody of the exhibit that the initial bagging had been inadequate. However, in considering the possibility of contamination of the exhibit the Special Criminal Court had considered the following;

(a) No other person came in contact with the appellant when the jacket was taken from him, apart from Garda McCarthy;

(b) Garda McCarthy had never received training in the use of firearms – indeed, the uncontested evidence was that he had never handled a firearm;

(c) The initial, unsatisfactory, bagging of the exhibit had taken place in the interview room in Coolock Garda Station;

(d) The bag in which the jacket was contained was never out of Garda McCarthy’s possession;

(e) The exhibit bag containing the North Face jacket was carried by Garda McCarthy and placed in the boot of a Garda car which he believed (without being 100 per cent sure about it) was a marked vehicle;

(f) The hoodie of Mr. Fogarty (the appellant’s co-accused) was handled in “precisely the same manner” as MM1, but no firearm residue was found on that item of clothing;

(g) Dr. O’Shaughnessy was prepared to examine Mr. Fogarty’s hoodie notwithstanding the fact that it was sealed by staples in the manner which MM1 had originally been sealed. One further factor identified by the Special Criminal Court was that Dr. O’Shaughnessy was that the “sealed brown bag which was received by [him] was considered by him to be more than adequate for this purpose.” This is not a relevant consideration. As already noted, the North Face jacket was presented to Dr. O’Shaughnessy in a package that was properly sealed. The fact that he was prepared to examine the exhibit as delivered in this fashion does not mean that there was no risk of contamination arising from the original way in which the jacket had been packed.

30. The factors listed at (a) to (f) above, as found by the trial Judges, suggest that there was no real possibility of contamination of MM1. None of these factors were seriously disputed on this appeal. The significance of the Garda vehicle (probably) being a marked car was however the subject of submissions to this court. Counsel for the DPP argued that a marked car would be driven by uniformed officers who do not carry firearms, in turn making it unlikely that the vehicle would have been used to transport firearms and therefore carrying gunpowder residue. We accept this submission, if only as a supportive consideration.

31. On this issue, much of the arguments made on behalf of the appellant relied on the accepted failure of Garda McCarthy to bag the jacket initially and on the evidence of Dr. O’Shaughnessy about the applicable standards and the danger of contamination. On this latter point, it is important to note that the witness’ final position was that he could not “speak to what happened to…” the exhibit before it was properly secured (page 43 of Transcript of the 16th of August 2022). Dr. O’Shaughnessy was asked a rolled-up question earlier in his evidence, as follows; “30. Q. And I think in terms of say, for example, stapling a bag closed, you would see a world of difference between the open mouth of a bag simply being stapled and that bag being folded down maybe twice or three times and then the staples applied, making a much more secure environment for the exhibit?

A. Yes.

Q. And I suppose, a bag which was relatively open, notwithstanding the staple, if left in conditions where firearms residue might have adhered to other surfaces such as the boot of a patrol car, the floor of a garda station, something of that nature, one couldn’t rule out the possibility of contamination in those circumstances, if the bang was stapled so inadequately, I think that’s fair to say?

A. Well, if that’s the circumstances, yes, that’s a possibility. I suppose, in my contemporaneous notes at the time, I noted a sealed brown paper bag and I was happy to proceed”.

32. However, despite the fact that Garda McCarthy had given his evidence by then, the detailed account of the custody of the exhibit was not put to the witness. The concession by Dr. O’Shaughnessy that there was a possibility of contamination in these vaguely described circumstances is not enough to undermine the finding by the trial court that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that any reasonable possibility of contamination had been excluded on the evidence.

33. We accept the submission of the DPP that the case made on behalf of the appellant on this issue is essentially a speculative one. Considering all the evidence, and in particular the evidence of Dr. O’Shaughnessy taken in conjunction with the factors listed at paragraph 29 of this judgment, we do not believe that the appellant has established any error on the part of the Special Criminal Court in respect of this issue.

34. With regard to issue (b), counsel for the appellant argued that there was no direct evidence to place Mr. Redmond in Madigan’s Yard in the first place. It was therefore wrong for Dr. O’Shaughnessy to be asked whether Mr. Redmond or Mr. Fogarty was the shooter, as this presupposed that Mr. Redmond was at the scene.

35. In response, counsel for the DPP pointed to the evidence placing the appellant in Madigan’s Yard. This included;

(a) The Citroen C4 was involved in the shooting at Madigan’s Yard;

(b) There was CCTV evidence connecting both Mr. Redmond and Mr. Fogarty to the purchasing of Zip firelogs at Circle K Donaghmede on the day before the shooting;

(c) The Citroen was burned out at Greenwood Avenue Donaghmede some short time after the shooting;

(d) Two Zip firelogs were found in the partially burned out Citroen;

(e) An intact Zip firelog was found in a Renault Megane, owned by Mr. Fogarty;

(f) The appellant was found in the Renault Megane with Mr. Fogarty near to the scene where the Citroen was set alight, a very short time after this had been done.

36. All of these items of circumstantial evidence were accepted by the Special Criminal Court. Most of them feature in the written submissions of the DPP in this appeal. However, these other pieces of evidence putting Mr. Redmond in Madigan’s Yard at the time of the shooting were not addressed in any meaningful way by the appellant’s counsel.

37. There was adequate evidence to place Mr. Redmond at the scene of the shooting. In those circumstances, it was appropriate to ask Dr. O’Shaughnessy to express a view as to which of the two men had been the person who discharged the firearm on the 17th of January 2022. This ground of appeal therefore fails.

38. Issue (c) turns on one part of the cross-examination of Dr. O’Shaughnessy. The relevant part of the transcript (at least according to Mr. Redmond’s counsel) reads; “28. Q. All right. So, in terms of those are some of the things maybe that we – that we can’t say. In terms of what we can say, if you find firearms residue on a garment, for example, which is the example most relevant to the case we’re dealing with here there are, broadly speaking, three empirical or scientific explanations for how that state of affairs might have come about, is that fair to say, and I – I don’t – well, let me go through them and then you can –yes. One, and it speaks for itself, I suppose, is that that garment or that piece of clothing was worn by someone who discharged a firearm?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Or indeed, I suppose, was very proximate to someone who discharged a firearm?

A. That’s correct as well, yes.

Q. Secondly, that that garment was at a place perhaps some small number of metres away from where a firearm was discharged?

A. That’s possible as well, yes.

Q. And the third possible explanation is that there’s a direct physical contact between that garment, upon which the residue was found ultimately, and another source of gunshot residue and that secondary transmission occurred between those two things?

A. That’s correct, yes.

Q. All right?

A. They’re the three general explanations that could be offered to a court but, again, the list is not exhaustive, other possibilities are possible as well.”.

39. Counsel submitted that, in light of these replies, it was not open to the trial judges to find beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Redmond had discharged a firearm.

40. This submission ignores the relevant evidence in chief given by Dr. O’Shaughnessy. At page 29 of the transcript, he was asked about the firearm residue detected on the North Face jacket; “24. A. Firearm residue was detected on the samples taken from the North Face jacket taken from Robert Redmond.

Q. Could you just consult your notes there please and tell me, please, were they consistent or characteristic samples?

A. There was a – again, there was a mixture of both types that you’d expect in a population of particles arising from the discharge of a firearm. So, there were characteristic particles amongst population of supporting consistent particles.

Q. And were they extensive or not?

A. Pardon?

Q. Was there a lot of it or was there not a lot of it?

A. There was quite a lot, yes.”

41. The evidence then continued; “1. Q. How long did you cease your examination?

A. During the course of the – we used a scanning electron microscope with an EDS detective to give us the chemicals. So, one so see the particle and give us the morphology and then to give us the chemical signature from the individual particle. We run an automated system that searches for the particles and these are classified according to whether the software believes that they are characteristic, consistent or other and then I, as a forensic scientist, I go back and I individually relocate each particle and I re-examine it. So, in the course of this particular item and the samples taken from it, I ---I examined approximately 26 particles and 11 of those were characteristic and the remainder then were consistent particles and I stopped

– I made in note in my contemporaneous notes at the time that there were –I was – there were indications that there were other particles present, but sufficient evidence had been gathered at that stage to satisfy me that there was a population of particles arising from the discharge of a firearm. So I stopped it at that point.”

42. In other words, the witness had identified an amount of particles that satisfied him that the wearer of the jacket had discharged a firearm. Therefore, whatever about the general propositions discussed in the portion of the cross examination upon which counsel for Mr. Redmond so heavily relied, in this case Dr. O’Shaughnessy had given evidence that there was such a concentration of particles that the wearer of the jacket was the shooter and not (for instance) someone standing a few metres away from a shooter.

43. At page 32, Dr. O’Shaughnessy gave this evidence; “20. A. So, the overall findings provide very strong support for the view that Robert Redmond was the shooter in this incident rather than it was someone else and moderate support for the view that Bernard Fogarty was not the shooter in this incident and it was someone else. I have chosen the above phrases from the following scale; weak support, moderate support, moderately strong support, strong support, very strong support and extremely strong support.

Q. Why have you nominated very strong support in connection with Robert Redmond?

A. Well, there was in relation to the significant population of particles arising from the firearm – the discharge of a firearm and the number of characteristic particles amongst that population of supporting consistent particles”

44. Again, this evidence is very specific to the facts of this case and is focused on the large amount of particles found on the appellant’s jacket.

45. It is striking that the detailed findings of Dr. O’Shaughnessy were not disputed directly in his cross examination. Instead, questions were put at a high level of generality. Of course, this may sometimes be an effective and compelling way of challenging the evidence of a witness. However, in this case it was necessary to put to the witness that his findings were unreliable notwithstanding the amount of particles he found on the North Face jacket. There was little point in asking him to accept general propositions which were divorced from the specific conclusions he had drawn by reference to the amount and concentration of particles he found on exhibit MM1.

46. The argument that Dr. O’Shaughnessy’s evidence was undermined by his cross examination is therefore not one with which we agree. As to the proposition that the trial court could not have properly come to a finding about the timing of the adhesion of the firearm particles, this argument was advanced in the written submissions of the appellant by reference to this section of the transcript; “36. Q. All right. I think it probably speaks for itself in terms of the evidence you’ve given this morning, but just to be clear, when you take a sample of gunshot residue from anywhere, it’s not possible to say when that gunshot residue was deposited on that surface. That’s simply – that’s simply not part of the science?

A. Not from – not from simply sampling. The idea of the sampler is that they have adhesive surface and the idea is to press that adhesive surface off the surface that you want to sample and it should pick up the particles if there’s particles present.”.

47. This was not the entire evidence on this topic, however. The Special Criminal Court found (at page 120); “31. It is clear from Dr. O’Shaughnessy’s evidence that if an item of clothing which had gunshot residue on it remains undisturbed, such residue would likely stay on that item indefinitely. The continuum is that from an indefinite one where the item is undisturbed to approximately 24 hours of common use when the item is exposed to ordinary environmental conditions. Dr. O’Shaughnessy also accepted it was impossible to be more precise without knowing the precise environment and conditions or the stress that a piece of clothing was subjected to. Mr Redmond’s North Face jacket did not remain undisturbed. It was worn by him on the morning of the 20th of January 2020. He was wearing it when he was arrested, this is not a case where an item of clothing was stationary and unworn. When the evidence is considered in its entirety, the Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only proper inference which can be drawn is that Mr Redmond’s North Face jacket was contaminated with firearms residue within approximately a 24-hour period from the time it was taken by Garda McCarthy when he went into the interview room at Coolock Garda Station at 14:21. To the extent that it might have been suggested at interview by Mr Redmond by way of explanation that he was present at a firing range in Germany in October 2019, the Court is satisfied that any reasonable possibility of contamination of the North Face jacket at that time is excluded, on the basis of the evidence of Dr Shaughnessy with regard to timeframes.”.

48. These findings are rooted in the evidence of Dr. O’Shaughnessy to the effect that firearm residue can persist on clothing for “approximately 24 hours of wear”; page 24, lines 3 to 7 of the transcript. This evidence was not disputed, nor was the evidence that Mr. Redmond was wearing an identical North Face jacket when the Zip fire logs were being purchased on the 16th of January and when he was arrested on the 17th of January. In those circumstances, we do not agree that the findings of the Special Criminal Court on the timing of the adhesion of the firearm particles to the North Face jacket should be upset.

49. This ground of appeal also fails.

50. For the sake of completeness, we should note that Grounds 9 and 10 of the Notice of Appeal were not advanced on behalf of the appellant in any meaningful way. However, as they were not withdrawn, we will consider them at this point; it is possible to do so briefly. The first of these grounds is essentially that there was an error on the part of the Special Criminal Court in permitting Detective Garda Cagney to give evidence about what was to be seen on a montage of CCTV footage. Detective Garda Cagney gave evidence of his expertise in the viewing and exhibiting of such evidence. The sort of testimony provided by this officer has frequently been permitted in this jurisdiction; see, for example, DPP v O’Brien [2015] IECA 312 . Nothing has been said on this appeal as to why the Special Criminal Court was wrong to admit the impugned evidence. This ground of appeal therefore fails. With regard to Ground 10, which is to the effect that the Special Criminal Court erred in finding that there were 2 people in the Citroen, counsel for the DPP has persuasively argued that the trial judges had sufficient evidence before them to make this finding and, indeed, to find that one of them was Mr. Redmond. The evidence available to the Special Criminal Court to that effect (and set out at paragraph 38 of the DPP’s written submissions) was not engaged with by Mr. Redmond’s counsel during the course of the appeal. We accept the submissions of the DPP with regard to this Ground of Appeal.

51. We would therefore dismiss the appeal in its entirety.