The Court of Appeal has ruled that DNA evidence was correctly admitted into the trial of a violent criminal convicted of the murder of Michael Barr, who was shot dead at Dublin's Sunset House pub in 2016.
"The evidence of what was found was clearly relevant, probative and admissible," said Mr Justice John Edwards, dismissing an appeal against conviction brought before the court by 40-year-old Christopher Slator.
Slator, who has 59 previous convictions, became the third man convicted of Mr Barr's murder after he was found guilty by the non-jury Special Criminal Court (SCC) in 2022.
David Hunter, aged 43, of Du Cane Road, White City, London, and Eamon Cumberton, of Mountjoy Street, Dublin 7, were also imprisoned for life for the offence.
Slator of Carnlough Road, Cabra, Dublin 7, had pleaded not guilty to the murder of Mr Barr at the Sunset House pub on Summerhill Parade in Dublin 1 on 25 April 2016.
The trial heard there was "chaos and screaming" in the aftermath of the gun murder, which took place during a raffle for the families of Republican prisoners.
Mr Barr was a manager of the pub but was socialising on the night he was shot. He was shot seven times, five times in the head.
During the trial, Slator's lawyers argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that there was no innocent explanation for how his DNA ended up on a mask and runners that were found in the back seat of the car used by Mr Barr's murderers.
At the Court of Appeal in April, Michael Bowman SC, for Slator, argued the court should not have admitted the DNA evidence from the mask and the runners in circumstances where the defence was disadvantaged because of what was argued was an incomplete examination of the items.
In response, Dominic McGinn SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said whether or not it was possible that DNA could have been present elsewhere on the items did not take away from the fact "that a DNA profile matching Mr Slator was found on the shoes and the mask".
In delivering the court's judgement, Mr Justice Edwards said the court had no hesitation in dismissing the first ground of appeal as to whether the SCC failed to properly consider a defence application for an analysis of both the legal and evidential burden of proof.
"The fact that the court proceeded to record a conviction reveals unambiguously that it was satisfied there was evidence on which a jury properly charged could convict," he said.
He went on to say that there was a DNA component matching the appellant’s profile on not just one but two separate exhibits, the rubber mask and the tongue of the runners, which were recovered from different places in a vehicle that was set alight.
He said that the court considered that the SCC had made entirely legitimate conclusions that were properly anchored in the evidence.
'Detailed, comprehensive and rigorous' analysis
Mr Justice Edwards described the ruling of the SCC as "detailed, comprehensive and rigorous in its analysis," adding that no complaint was made by Slator's legal team after the ruling.
"The SCC concluded that he was indeed guilty and fully and comprehensively explained how they had reached that conclusion," he said.
Concerning the second ground of appeal, Mr Justice Edwards said that the SCC’s conclusions on the issue of possible contamination or cross contamination regarding the DNA evidence were "cogent, rational and grounded in the evidence", so there was no basis to interfere with these conclusions.
"The evidence of what was found was clearly relevant, probative and admissible," he said, adding that there was no breach of forensic procedures and no indication of a forensic need to "swab every millimetre" of the mask or runners.
Concerning a third ground of appeal - that the SCC erred in viewing a "trip" that Slator had taken to Thailand the day after the shooting as being supportive of the charge against him - Mr Justice Edwards said that this was clearly admissible as circumstantial evidence.
In conclusion, Mr Justice Edwards said that as Slator’s trial was satisfactory and his conviction safe, the court was dismissing his appeal.
