A man who has spent more than three years in jail serving a life sentence for the murder of a teenager, has had his conviction quashed on appeal.

Aaron Connolly, of Willistown, Drumcar had pleaded not guilty to the murder of 18-year-old Cameron Reilly at Shamrock Hill, Dunleer, County Louth on 26 May 2018. He was convicted in December 2022.

Reilly, a hospitality student, was found dead in a field.

On Monday, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's charge to the jury lacked balance and in parts may have been seen as "advocacy" for the prosecution case.

Mr Justice John Edwards said that "such were the stridency and emphasis" of comments made by Mr Justice Tony Hunt while he charged the jury, "there is a real possibility the jury could have perceived that he was personally convinced of the guilt of the accused and that implicitly he was pressing them to deliver a guilty verdict".

While acknowledging that Mr Justice Hunt gave the jury "impeccable instructions as to the applicable legal principles" involved, Mr Justice Edwards said that some of the trial judge's comments were capable of being perceived as "disparaging" and "mocking" of the defence case.

The trial jury heard that Connolly, who is now 26, initially denied that anything sexual happened between him and Reilly on the night and had told gardaí (Irish police) that he was "straight".

However, on the seventh day of the trial, Connolly made admissions through his lawyers that there was sexual activity between the two on the night Reilly was killed.

The accused said that when he left, Reilly was still alive and standing up.

Body found in field

Reilly had been part of a group of around 15 young people who gathered in a field on the outskirts of the town on the night of 25 May.

Alcohol and cannabis were consumed by some of those present, although Reilly's best friend told the trial he never took drugs.

The group went to a local takeaway to get food shortly after midnight.

Reilly's body was found in the field the following morning by a man out walking his dog.

Chief State Pathologist Dr Linda Mulligan told the trial the teenager's cause of death was asphyxia due to external pressure on the neck, with no other contributing factors.

In his initial statement to gardaí, Connolly said he and Reilly went in different directions at the end of the night and after the pair parted, he "never looked back" to see which way Reilly went.

The accused said he could not remember what he was doing during a "missing hour" on the night Reilly died violently as he had taken a combination of drugs that made him black out.

'Denigrating of the defence case'

In launching an appeal against the conviction last June, Michael Bowman SC, representing Connolly, said Mr Justice Hunt had sought to reduce the defence case to the possibility of a "peeping Tom" who had come out of the bushes aroused or angry and killed Reilly.

"That is nothing if not denigrating of the defence case," he said.

He asked the three-judge court to look at the possibility that "a line had been crossed" and amounted to "a deconstruction of the defence closing and thereby of its defence".

Counsel also suggested the trial judge had been excessively critical of the conduct of the defence in relation to some prosecution witnesses.

He said the judge had raised the issue of "finger pointing" in relation to one witness and had told the jury that no apology had been offered to this person.

Bowman said this had the effect of "disparaging" the defence case.

He also raised the issue of how admissions made by Connolly through his counsel during the trial were dealt with in the judge's charge.

These admissions were made under section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, which allows an accused person to admit certain parts of the prosecution case, removing the need to call witnesses to prove those aspects.

Under the Act, such admissions become "conclusive evidence" of the fact admitted.

Among the admissions was a claim that Reilly was "in good health" when Connolly left him.

'Perceived by jury members as advocacy'

In delivering the Court of Appeal's judgement on Monday, Mr Justice Edwards said that Mr Justice Hunt had given "impeccable instructions as to the applicable legal principles" in the case.

However, the court agreed with the submission of Connolly's barristers that Mr Justice Hunt's charge to the jury lacked balance and that in places, "it may have been perceived by jury members as advocacy".

"He did over and over again, and with great insistency, seek to make clear to the jury that he had strong personal views on certain aspects of the case," said Mr Justice Edwards.

"We are satisfied that the trial judge did not intentionally seek to influence the jury inappropriately, and indeed tried his best, albeit unsuccessfully, not to do so."

He said the conviction was quashed, with the director of public prosecutions now to decide whether to apply for a retrial.