The Court of Appeal has dismissed the objections raised by a convicted felon regarding the conduct of his legal representation in a recent drug-related trial.
Reece David O’Flaherty, sentenced to 54 months in prison for possession of cocaine with the intent to supply, sought to appeal his conviction by criticising his legal team. His complaints centred on their alleged failure to challenge case aspects and their overall trial performance. However, the court found no merit in these criticisms.
O’Flaherty contended that his counsel’s ‘negative advice’ affected his prospects for acquittal. He criticised their ‘timidity and passivity’ during the trial and failure to oppose the joinder of separate indictments, which he believed could have led to acquittal on both counts in separate trials. Despite these claims, Mrs. Justice Stacey affirmed that the counsel’s guidance was ‘accurate and realistic’, considering the prosecution’s early willingness to accept a plea for a lesser charge.
The Court highlighted that circumstantial evidence against O’Flaherty was strong, and no inappropriate prosecutorial or judicial behaviour warranted interruption by his counsel. Justice Stacey noted that interventions during trial are discretionary and sometimes counterproductive, potentially affecting juror perception negatively. The evidence, as presented, justified the joinder of indictments, and the jury showed understanding by acquitting O’Flaherty of one count.
Additionally, the issue of expert evidence concerning O’Flaherty’s mobile phone was addressed. The appeal argued for more extensive expert testimony, yet Justice Stacey clarified the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt. The defence successfully ensured that crucial information—that no incriminating messages were found on O’Flaherty’s phone—was agreed upon and presented clearly to the jury.
Concluding the appeal, Justice Stacey found no evidence of judicial bias within the summation or directives given to the jury. She deemed the conviction to be safe, citing sufficient evidence to uphold it, and found no grounds to consider the appeal further.
This decision reaffirms the necessity of realistic legal counsel and supports the integrity of judicial processes in complex criminal cases.
