A Dublin man found guilty of murdering his love rival after he found him sleeping with his partner has been given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against his conviction.
Keith Connorton (44) had denied murdering Graham McKeever (32) at Deerpark Avenue, Tallaght, on February 18th, 2017.
By a 10-to-two majority, a jury found him guilty of murder and he was sentenced in 2019 to life imprisonment.
A Supreme Court panel, comprising Mr Justice John MacMenamin, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne and Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe, determined one ground of challenge was of general public importance and likely to arise in other cases.
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Michael Harding: I went to the cinema to see Small Things Like These. By the time I emerged I had concluded the film was crap
Look inside: 1950s bungalow transformed into modern five-bed home in Greystones for €1.15m
‘I’m in my early 30s and recently married - but I cannot imagine spending the rest of my life with her’
The issue concerns the admissibility of recordings of emergency phone calls into evidence at trials.
During the criminal trial, the jury heard Connorton was living with his long-term partner Claire McGrath at Deerpark Avenue but, after an argument, she invited Mr McKeever to spend the night with her.
When Connorton returned home at 4am, he found the pair together. A fight broke out that resulted in Mr McKeever suffering four stab wounds, including one that penetrated his heart and killed him, the trial heard.
Connorton said he acted in self defence after Mr McKeever punched him, breaking his eye socket, and then came at him with a knife.
The appeal ground concerns the trial judge’s decision to admit into evidence a recording of a 999 call, made by Ms McGrath in the aftermath of the stabbing, on the basis that it contained a statement from Connorton that was against his interest.
Connorton’s legal team had argued the call should be excluded under a rule against hearsay evidence, while the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) said the call was admissible under a rule about best evidence. The DPP argued the hearsay rule was created at a time when technology to record calls did not exist.
The trial judge concluded the call was admissible under a legal exception to hearsay known as “res gestae”, which relates to a relevant, spontaneous statement made during the course of the event. He also made comments to the effect that to rule otherwise would offend common sense.
In his appeal application to the Supreme Court, Connorton argued the Court of Appeal was wrong to uphold the finding that the call was admissible under the res gestae exception. His legal team submitted that the call was highly significant to his conviction.
The DPP did not oppose the application, but it submitted that Connorton’s points do not meet the constitutional threshold required for granting the appeal.
It claimed that another reason for admitting the call into evidence was just as valid and that modern technology has outstripped the circumstances in which the hearsay rule developed.
The DPP submitted that a further exception to the hearsay rule should be recognised where high-quality evidence, such as the recording, should be admissible as a matter of common sense.
A date for the appeal has not yet been set.
