Judicial intervention did not transgress boundaries such as to render trial unstatisfactory

McCarthy J: Criminal Law – appeal against conviction – possession of a firearm – possession of ammunition – weapon was a G9 automatic pistol – sentence of ten years imprisonment imposed – members of An Garda Síochána became aware that a motor vehicle was parked in a cul-de-sac – gardai made inquiry and found registration number was false – vehicle was locked – five garda witnesses gave evidence that they saw the weapon through the window – appellant was found in immediate vicinity and after a he was found to be in possession of a key to the vehicle – the key was used to open the car – can of petrol on the passenger seat – appellant was arrested and interviewed – appellant asserted that he had agreed to drive the vehicle to the place in question for the sum of €500 – appellant said he didn’t know that the firearm was in the vehicle – in cross-examination, appellant agreed that the Gardai must have been lying as to what they saw – absence of photographic evidence and the potential which might have existed for use by Gardaí of mobile phones in that context was raised – photographs were taken the next day and showed that the firearm was in the position stated by the Gardaí – trial judge intervened during the cross-examination of the final Garda eyewitness to ascertain whether it was the defence case that the Gardaí had “planted” the firearm – after prosecution’s closing, in the absence of the jury, the issue was canvassed again with counsel – in light of that, defence counsel did not put the defence case to the jury on the basis that the gun was planted but made clear that credibility was in issue – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in so far as in the course of the trial, the judge misrepresented and/or misinterpreted the defence’s case to the jury – appellant contended that intervention of judge should not have taken place in the presence of the jury – judge was desirous of establishing clearly what the defence was – only question is whether the trial was rendered in some sense unsatisfactory because the judge was in error in making the enquiries in understandably blunt terms before the jury – judge did not impinge on the opportunity for either of those witnesses to give their accounts fully – intervention were minimal – judge did not transgress the boundaries elaborated in D.C. – it is within the normal course of the ebb and flow of a trial for a judge to engage as he did and when he did – appeal dismissed.