Admission of 999 call was not hearsay as it proved circumstances and reasons why Gardaí went to the scene

Criminal law – appeal against conviction – convicted of one count of criminal damage and one count of endangerment – appellant drove a car into the wall of the complainant’s home – appellant sentenced to four years imprisonment – complainant was the appellant’s wife who was at home with her four children – complainant refused to answer questions at trial – prosecution applied to have complainant declared a hostile witness and to admit the complainant’s first statement as evidence pursuant to section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 – trial judge ruled in favour of both these applications – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in admitting the 999 call – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in categorising the 999 call as real evidence – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in declaring the complainant a hostile witness – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in admitting the first witness statement of the complainant pursuant to section 16 of the CJA 2006 – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in admitting the evidence of Garda Liam Murphy – whether the trial judge erred in admitting the photographs taken by Garda Mark Bolger – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in admitting the evidence of the chartered structural engineer – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in failing to direct an acquittal on the endangerment count – in principle the 999 call was admissible to prove the circumstances in which and the reasons why the Gardaí went to the scene – judge was right in finding that the evidence was admissible as the 999 call was a prior statement showing consistency with the complainant’s first statement, which was received pursuant to section 16 and is an exception to the rule against narrative – it could not be clearer that the judge considered all relevant legal principles under section 16 and that the conclusion was right – it was highly relevant that the appellant was seen in the vicinity of the house a relatively short time before the offences were committed – judge addressed the issue of preservation of the crim scene and was entitled to take the view he did on the evidence – the extent of the damage is probative of the manner in which the appellant drive the vehicle and endangered the occupants and it outweighed any prejudicial effect – judge had regard to all relevant aspects of fact and law, and properly reached his conclusion that the application should be refused – appeal dismissed.