HomeNewsSupreme Court refuses Dundons permission to appeal convictions

Supreme Court refuses Dundons permission to appeal convictions

-

 

Wayne and John Dundon

CONVICTED criminals Wayne and John Dundon have been refused permission by the Supreme Court to bring fresh appeals against their convictions for threatening to kill members of the Collins family.

The three-judge Supreme Court ruled that neither brother had met the necessary requirements entitling them to appeal before that court.

Wayne Dundon (37), of Lenihan Avenue, Ballinacurra Weston, was jailed for six years after being convicted at the non-jury Special Criminal Court in 2012 of threatening Alice Collins that he would kill or cause serious harm to her sons Gareth and Jimmy at Hyde Avenue, Limerick, on September 30, 2010.

Wayne was also found guilty of intimidating potential State witnesses, mother and daughter Alice and April Collins, with the intention of obstructing the course of justice.

His brother John (33), Hyde Road, Limerick, was also found guilty in 2012 of threatening to kill April Collins on April 3 and 4, 2011 and was subsequently jailed for 5 and half years.

Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by the brothers against their convictions, before they took their cases to the Supreme Court.

In its published ruling, Wayne Dundon gave a “dressed-up appeal” to the Supreme Court asking it to overrule the Court of Appeal’s decision not to admit new evidence.

Wayne Dundon sought the court to consider records of phone conversations between Alice Collins and her husband Jimmy arguing that transcripts raised issues about her credibility.

The Supreme Court ruled that the items of evidence had not reached the necessary legal threshold.

John Dundon’s application asked the Supreme Court to consider that the three judge non jury Special Criminal court failed to remind themselves of the caution which must be exercised in relation to identification evidence.

The ruling of the Supreme Court found that it was a “novel proposition” that professional judges would have to remind themselves about the dangers of identification evidence.

They said that there was no appeal necessary “in the interest of justice”.

 

 

- Advertisment -

Must Read