Jurors who found a man guilty of murdering his wife on a family boating trip were potentially prejudiced by inappropriate media coverage of a mid-trial decision, the Court of Appeal heard on Monday.
Lawyers for Stephen McKinney argued that he was wrongly exposed to the risk of unfairness by a subsequent failure to discharge the panel deciding the case.
The 46-year-old is seeking to overturn his conviction for killing Lu Na McKinney during a holiday on Lough Erne, Co Fermanagh in April 2017.
The body of Mrs McKinney (35) was recovered from the water near a jetty at Devenish Island, where the couple were moored on a cruise with their two young children.
Her husband, originally from Fintona in Co Tyrone, has always denied the killing.
McKinney claimed she fell into the water while on deck to check mooring ropes, and that he tried to save her.
But in 2021 a jury at Dungannon Crown Court found him guilty of his wife’s murder after accepting the prosecution case that it was no boating accident.
McKinney, who is serving a minimum 20 years in prison, has advanced a number of grounds in his attempt to have the verdict declared unsafe.
His legal team claimed the jury should have been dismissed after two media outlets mistakenly published the dismissal of a defence application - heard in private - that he had no case to answer.
The panel whose role was to examine the evidence may have learned of the reports and been influenced by the trial judge’s decision, it was contended.
With the development featured in articles about McKinney not giving evidence in his own defence, Brian McCartney KC argued that it put the integrity of the trial process in peril.
“This happened as a result of inappropriate reports by the press,” he told the Court of Appeal.
The barrister also rejected the prosecution’s assessment of the risk as being “inconsequential”.
“The prejudice could have been cured by an obvious solution: that is, to discharge the jury,” Mr McCartney submitted.
“It presented an unnecessary risk that this man had to carry through the remainder of this case.
“He should not have been exposed to it, and certainly not in a murder case.
“This was an irregularity in the trial process… that served to disadvantage one person and that was the appellant.”
In a separate ground of appeal, the court heard McKinney’s trial should have been stopped following the sudden death of one of one of his original barristers.
Describing the situation as unprecedented, Mr McCartney stressed the need to ensure fairness and protect the defendant’s rights.
He added: “Where the disadvantage occurred is that he was denied the invaluable assistance of junior counsel in a murder case which had approximately four weeks to run.”
The appeal continues.