Judgment reserved in Jennifer Dornan murder appeal case
Prosecutors were entitled to use evidence which contradicted one of their own witnesses at the trial of a man found guilty of murdering Jennifer Dornan in west Belfast, the Court of Appeal heard today.
Crown counsel insisted it was legally permissible to rely on the new testimony from a woman who claimed she overheard Raymond O’Neill confess to killing someone.
Judgment was reserved in 48-year-old O’Neill’s attempt to overturn his conviction for the killing.
Ms Dornan, 30, was stabbed to death at her Hazel View home in the Lagmore area back in August 2015.
The house was then set on fire in what was believed to be an attempt to destroy evidence.
O’Neill followed the victim back to her home before launching the fatal knife attack in the early hours of the morning, according to the prosecution.
He denied killing the mother of three and claimed that he suffered from memory loss due to being poisoned by prison staff in Dublin.
But in 2022 he received a minimum 22-year jail sentence after being convicted of murder and arson at Belfast Crown Court.
During the trial jurors were shown CCTV footage of Ms Dornan walking home, and a man climbing over a fence to enter the property a short time later.
The prosecution successfully argued O’Neill was that intruder.
Appealing against the murder conviction, defence lawyers disputed the right to introduce evidence mid-trial from a former partner of O’Neill’s nephew who undermined another prosecution witness.
The woman testified that she had been woken by the defendant banging on their door on the morning Ms Dornan died.
She told the jury she then overheard a conversation between the two men which involved Raymond O’Neill confessing he had “killed someone”.
He allegedly added: “It was the drink and drugs that made me do it.”
The woman claimed she came forward after reading a news report of the evidence given by her former partner, stating that she wanted to tell the truth about what she knew.
O’Neill’s barrister argued there had been a legal error in allowing the prosecution to rely on two conflicting accounts.
Martin O’Rourke KC argued the development was unfair and wrong.
However, prosecution counsel David McDowell KC described it as a “common sense situation”.
He insisted the accused’s legal team was notified early on when the woman came forward.
“We were aware of the sensitivities of the situation and did everything in our power to equip the defence to deal with it,” Mr McDowell submitted.
“(The common law permits) an unfavourable witness to be contradicted by other witnesses.”
Reserving judgment following the two-day hearing, Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan stated: “There is a lot to consider in this case, we will provide a ruling as soon as possible.”