Man (34) jailed for guns haul claims ‘ear defect’ identification was unfair

“The lynchpin of the prosecution case was the ear,” said defence counsel James B. Dwyer SC at the Court of Appeal yesterday, telling the court that gardaí should have carried out an identity parade in the case of Leon Sharlott (34).

Sharlott, of Fordstown, Navan, Meath, was sentenced at Wexford Courthouse in 2022 by Judge James McCourt to seven years in prison with the final 12 months suspended, after he was found guilty of two offences contrary to Section 27A (1) of the Firearms Act.

Two handguns with matching ammunition were found by gardaí in the footwell of a Volkswagen Golf at a council yard on the outskirts of Gorey in Wexford on March 15, 2018, while items including a pair of runners and a package of gloves were found in the boot.

At his appeal, Mr Dwyer said that the prosecution tied Sharlott to the guns via a DNA sample on the shoes found in the boot of the car, with the appellant admitting in garda interview that the shoes were his.

Mr Dwyer said that CCTV footage showed Sharlott and another man buying gloves in a store, with the appellant identified by “the defect in his ear”, which matched a photo of him taken in garda custody.

Counsel said the prosecution further adduced the evidence of a witness who said he gave a lift to a man, whom he described as having “a bar” through the ear, which had “something missing”.

Mr Dwyer said that it was his contention that as no identity parade was conducted, the identification process had been undermined by a risk to his client.

He said that of three people who witnessed the suspect, one witness said he could not describe the person he saw, who was a passenger in his vehicle, and did not describe a defect of the ear.

A second witness described “a stocky person” who had a piece missing out of his ear and a bar in the ear, while a third witness gave a detailed description that the other two were not able to give.

Mr Dwyer said that the identification of the suspect was something that the jury was invited to do in this case.

Mr Justice John Edwards remarked that it might have been best practice for the gardaí to have conducted an identity parade, but the fact that this was not done was hardly unfair to the appellant.

Mr Dwyer replied that it was his contention that this was unfair, as “the process was contaminated by the discussion of the defect of the ear”.

“The lynchpin of the prosecution case was the ear,” said Mr Dwyer.

Mr Dwyer said that the jury should have been discharged, as the ear of the suspect was the main part of the case and “a suboptimal identification process” was carried out.

John O’Kelly SC, for the State, said that the jury had seen a video of two men in real time buying the gloves that were later found in the car along with a pair of shoes on which the DNA of the appellant was found.

He said that the jury did not need somebody to assist them, as they saw the real evidence and were entitled to make the connection.

Mr Justice Edwards said that the court would reserve judgement in the case.