Man Appeals Conviction in Dublin Park Strangulation Case

URGENT UPDATE: A man convicted of attempting to strangle a woman in a Dublin park is fighting to have crucial DNA evidence excluded from his appeal. 41-year-old Slawomir Gierlowski is contesting the introduction of DNA found on a cigarette packet near the crime scene, claiming it should not have been part of his trial.

During a critical hearing at the Court of Appeal on October 26, 2023, Gierlowski’s legal team described the case against him as “fragile,” highlighting the “weak forensic evidence.” This appeal comes after he was previously sentenced to 22-and-a-half years in prison in 2018 for a series of assaults on women between 2011 and 2016, including an attempted rape on December 18, 2010.

The prosecution argues that all circumstantial evidence must be evaluated collectively, asserting that the DNA found on the cigarette packet, alongside Gierlowski’s fingerprints on a piece of flex, links him to the attack on a young mother at Ballymount Park on May 30, 2011. This attack is one of several Gierlowski has been convicted of, with his first recorded incident occurring in December 2010.

Gierlowski maintains his innocence, claiming the evidence against him is circumstantial and unreliable. His lawyer, Maurice Coffey SC, stressed that multiple identification parades failed to confirm his identity and argued that drawing inferences from the evidence presented was problematic. “The danger of DNA evidence is that for a jury, DNA equals guilt,” Coffey stated.

The court heard that Gierlowski’s DNA was matched through an investigation into a separate assault in 2016, raising questions about the reliability of the evidence presented. Mr. Justice John Edwards noted that while cigarette boxes are commonly discarded, the presence of a unique piece of flex with Gierlowski’s partial print cannot be overlooked.

The State’s counsel, Karl Finnegan SC, insisted that the circumstantial evidence must be viewed as a whole, emphasizing the connection between the cigarette box and Gierlowski’s denial of smoking Marlboro cigarettes, the type found at the crime scene. “The relevance of each piece of circumstantial evidence only becomes apparent when looked at together,” Finnegan asserted.

As the court reserves judgment, the implications of this case are significant. If Gierlowski’s appeal is successful, it could challenge the validity of key forensic evidence in similar cases.

This developing story highlights ongoing concerns regarding the reliability of circumstantial and forensic evidence in criminal trials. Updates are expected as the Court of Appeal deliberates on this high-profile case that has captured public attention.

Stay tuned for further updates as this case unfolds.