Background
Jason Bonney was convicted by the Special Criminal Court of participating in or contributing to the activity of a criminal organisation, contrary to section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. The charge arose from the gang-related shooting at Dublin’s Regency Hotel on 5 February 2016. The prosecution alleged that Bonney provided access to and drove a black BMW X5 used in the operation. He received a sentence of eight-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.
Bonney denied being the BMW’s driver. Julie McGlynn placed him elsewhere at a material time, while Peter Tyrell testified that Bonney’s father, Willie Bonney, was driving the vehicle. The prosecution subsequently called Paul Byrne, who said that Willie Bonney was at home during the relevant period and ordinarily drove a black Lexus. No objection to Byrne’s evidence was made at trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed Bonney’s challenge to his conviction and sentence, after which the Supreme Court granted leave on issues concerning statutory alibi evidence, prosecution rebuttal evidence, and grounds raised for the first time on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court held that Tyrell’s testimony was not “evidence in support of an alibi” within section 20(8) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. That definition requires evidence positively placing the accused at another particular place or area at the relevant time, thereby making his presence at the crime scene unlikely or impossible. Evidence merely suggesting that somebody else was at the alleged crime scene—or was driving the relevant vehicle—does not qualify. The Court therefore disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation on that point.
Because Tyrell’s testimony was not statutory alibi evidence, Byrne’s evidence could not be admitted under section 20(4) specifically to disprove it. That conclusion did not, however, automatically make Byrne’s testimony inadmissible. The controlling procedural point was that Bonney had not objected at trial or advanced the later arguments concerning section 20 and rebuttal evidence, depriving the Special Criminal Court of an opportunity to rule on them. Applying the principles governing new appellate grounds established in People (DPP) v Cronin (No 2), the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse permission to raise those arguments for the first time on appeal. The conviction accordingly remained undisturbed.
Key Takeaways
- Statutory alibi evidence must positively locate the accused somewhere other than the alleged crime scene at the relevant time.
- Testimony that another person committed the relevant act, without identifying the accused’s location, is not alibi evidence under section 20(8).
- A defendant ordinarily cannot preserve no objection at trial and then introduce a new admissibility or rebuttal argument on appeal unless the stringent standard for entertaining a new ground is met.
Why It Matters
The decision gives a narrow, geography-based interpretation to Ireland’s statutory alibi-notice regime. Because section 20 restricts the defence’s ordinary freedom to present factual evidence without advance notice, its requirements apply only where evidence places the accused at a different location—not whenever defence evidence tends to show that the accused was absent from the crime scene.
The judgment also underscores the importance of contemporaneous objections in criminal trials. Even where an appellate court identifies an error in the lower court’s interpretation of an evidentiary statute, a conviction will not necessarily be disturbed when the operative argument was never presented to the trial court.