Attacker who stabbed man in Portlaoise argues his rights were breached

A balaclava-clad attacker who inflicted a potentially life-threatening injury on a man he stabbed in the home of his former partner has argued that his constitutional rights were breached when gardaí seized his car.

Barristers for Gavin Hanway (55) said that a garda gave evidence he had seized the car on foot of a search warrant, but this warrant was made out in the name of another garda. Barristers for the State, however, submitted that the trial judge had ruled that the seizure of the car was not a breach of Hanway’s constitutional rights and that evidence gleaned from a forensic search of the car should be shown to the jury in the interests of justice.

Hanway, of Limekiln Green, Walkinstown, Dublin was sentenced by Judge Keenan Johnson to 12 years in prison after being found guilty of assault causing serious harm to Kevin Kenny at a house in The Hermitage, Portlaoise on July 26, 2016, following an eight-day trial at Portlaoise Courthouse in 2024.

Hanway was also convicted by a jury of an aggravated burglary at the same address, which was the home of his former partner, Teresa Ryan, on the same date.

An ambulance was called to the scene and rushed the victim to the Midlands Regional Hospital in Portlaoise before he was transferred to hospital in Tullamore for surgery. The stab wound to Mr Kenny lacerated his small bowel and was potentially life-threatening without appropriate treatment.

Sergeant Kieran Shortall told the court that Ms Ryan was able to tell gardaí that Hanway, with whom she had previously been in an on-off relationship, was the intruder.

The court heard that Ms Ryan and members of a band who had played at a wedding, including Mr Kenny, arrived at her home in the early hours of July 26, 2016. They were confronted by a male dressed in black with his face covered and carrying a knife.

Sgt Shortall said that “mayhem ensued” as the intruder started waving the knife in the direction of men in the house before Mr Kenny was stabbed.

He said that a “standout feature” of the incident was how the attacker approached Ms Ryan who was cowering in a corner and stated: “I told you I would get you back.”

The court heard Hanway denied any role in the incident after gardai arrested him and claimed he was in a cousin’s home in Dublin at the time, although he accepted he was in Portlaoise a short time earlier.

However, a forensic examination of Hanway’s car found glass fragments from Ms Ryan’s house.

READ ALSO: Laois Gardaí issue fresh appeal as teenage boy remains critical in hospital after e-bike crash

In launching an appeal against conviction on Thursday, July 9, counsel for the appellant, James Dwyer SC, said that the car was seized under warrant. He said that the arresting garda had given evidence that the warrant was in the name of another garda, who did not attend with him on the day.

In response to a question from the bench, Mr Dwyer confirmed that a warrant was “possibly not” required for the seizing of the vehicle, however he said that the arresting garda had given a sworn testimony that he seized the car on foot of a warrant.

Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy pointed out that the garda had the power to seize the vehicle even without the warrant, so the power existed, even if it was not specified.

Mr Dwyer replied that the garda had given evidence that he entered on foot of a warrant, but he had no right to do so. Counsel went on to say that the judge had applied a probative versus prejudicial test, which had nothing to do with this evidence.

Mr Dwyer next raised a ground of appeal concerning evidence that was admitted concerning the appellant’s use of testosterone. He said that witnesses had described the assailant as being well built, with his former partner giving evidence that she recognised his voice on the day and that he worked out.

Mr Dwyer said the evidence put forward a young, virile man as carrying out the attack, but the prosecution had put forward evidence that the appellant was taking supplements. He said the trial judge had ruled that evidence could be left in about such supplements making people aggressive, which Mr Dwyer submitted was evidence of bad character and disposition.

To this, Mr Justice Alexander Owens said it was common knowledge that testosterone supplements have a tendency to make people aggressive.

A final ground of appeal concerned the jury's verdict, which counsel argued was not delivered in accordance with section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984. Counsel submitted that despite a verdict being returned and the jury discharged, the jury were then contacted and called to return to the court, as they had not been polled as to how many jurors agreed with the majority verdict.

Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Aoife O’Leary BL, said that the trial judge had ruled that the seizure of the car was not a breach of Hanway’s constitutional rights. She said that although the judge found that this evidence had been illegally obtained, he subsequently applied the legal test to this evidence and ruled it admissible in the interest of justice.

Concerning the evidence of the appellant’s use of testosterone, Ms O’Leary said that the defence had focused on the witnesses' description of the assailant and his agility. She said it was incorrectly put to the injured party during the trial that the appellant was then 57, with the suggestion being that he was not agile enough and did not match the description. However, he was actually 44 at the time of the offence and very fit, counsel said. Ms O'Leary said that a portion of his garda interview was relevant and probative, as Hanway told the gardaí he was a gym user who took testosterone, but that these supplements did not affect him in a negative way.

Concerning the last ground of appeal, Ms O’Leary said that the jury gave their verdict and simply reconvened later for the court to poll them on their numbers.

Mr Justice John Edwards said the Court of Appeal would reserve judgment in the case to a later date.