Karen Harrington’s petition to overturn her life imprisonment conviction has been dismissed on grounds of privacy rights violation during the investigation of a two-year-old toddler, Santina Cawley’s murder. The Court of Appeal judges, with Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy leading, reiterated that privacy expectancy does not apply when navigating through public areas, with specific reference to captured CCTV footage. Harrington, 40, was convicted of murdering Santina in her flat at Elderwood Park, Boreenmanna Road, Cork, on 5th July 2019, despite denying it. The unanimous guilty declaration was delivered in May 2022 at the Central Criminal Court in Cork by a jury comprising of seven men and four women, presided over by Mr Justice Michael MacGrath.
The court learned that Michael Cawley, father of the toddler, had entrusted his daughter to Harrington, his then-partner, when he left their apartment on 5th July 2019’s early hours for Cork City. He was seeking his cousin who had travelled from Limerick. The court also heard that the deceased child suffered a total of 53 different injuries. Dr Margaret Bolster, the assistant state pathologist, testified at the trial, confirming that the extent and spread of the injuries clearly indicated that they were not accidentally inflicted.
Harrington’s lawyer, Jane Hyland SC, argued that Harrington’s privacy was violated when a CCTV footage taken from a nearby building aimed at her duplex was made accessible for the jury at the Court of Appeal in March. Ms Hyland claimed it was unlawful to allow the CCTV footage from Clanrickarde Estate. She argued it violated Harrington’s privacy rights and the sanctity of her dwelling under the Irish Constitution, as it exposed the exterior and interior of her residence. Despite these arguments, the court, led by Ms Justice Kennedy, dismissed the appeal, not convinced there was an infringement on Harrington’s privacy rights.
Ms Justice Kennedy put across that there was no significant injustice in the situation where footage was gathered to aid the probe and ended up offering pertinent and permissible evidence at the hearing. She highlighted that the video was retrieved from public spaces and had a high level of proof value, asserting that its acceptance was absolutely justified.
Ms Justice Kennedy pointed out that even if there had been a challenge to the footage during the trial, which did not happen, the appellant would not have likely achieved success in keeping the evidence out.
During the appeal process, Ms Hyland argued that the CCTV recording infringed Harrington’s privacy rights under the EU law, specifically referring to the European Convention on Human Rights and the safeguarding of individual data under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.