CATHERINE NEVIN has lost her latest bid challenging her conviction for murdering her husband Tom more than 14 years ago.
This time she had applied to have her conviction declared a miscarriage of justice on the basis of newly discovered facts. These facts called into question the credibility of witnesses allegedly approached to carry out the killing, her lawyers said.
However, her solicitor Anne Fitzgibbon said after the ruling yesterday that this was not the end of the matter and she would be taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights. She was very disappointed with the ruling.
“I had great faith in that court to vindicate the constitutional right to a fair trial. Unfortunately it chose not to do so. We will be taking it further, certainly to Europe.” There were many grounds on which the case could be taken further, Ms Fitzgibbon added.
Nevin was not in court for yesterday’s ruling. “She wanted to be there but they wouldn’t produce her. I don’t know why they wouldn’t produce her,” she said.
In its judgment delivered by Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the attempt to have her conviction declared a miscarriage of justice.
Mr Justice Hardiman concurred with the view of the trial judge, the late Ms Justice Mella Carroll, that Nevin had had her husband assassinated and had then attempted to assassinate his character during the court hearings. “This court reiterates those views.”
He delivered the judgment with Mr Justice Liam McKechnie and Mr Justice George Birmingham.
Ten years ago, Nevin was convicted of murdering her husband at their pub, Jack White’s Inn, near Brittas Bay, Co Wicklow, on March 19th, 1996.
She was also convicted of soliciting Gerard Heapes, John Jones and William McClean to kill her husband.
In this appeal which was heard earlier this year, her lawyers had argued that there were newly discovered facts which were not available at the time of her trial and which made the conviction unsafe.
These facts undermined the credibility of the three men allegedly solicited to kill her husband, her lawyers said.
However, the Court of Criminal Appeal found the matters relied upon as new or newly discovered facts were all collateral matters.
Addressing the credibility of the three men, it said none of them was put forward at the trial as being persons of good character.
“It is of course intrinsically unlikely that someone seeking to employ an assassin would approach a person of known good character,” the judgment stated. It also found that Nevin’s case was “in certain important particulars, very vague”.
This was not Nevin’s first challenge against her conviction. In 2003, her first appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Her lawyers argued her conviction was unfair and unsatisfactory on grounds including adverse publicity; the refusal to allow separate trials on the murder and soliciting charges; the nature of circumstantial evidence admitted at trial; and the alleged failure of the trial judge to properly analyse that evidence for the jury.
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed her claim and found that Nevin had received “an exceptionally fair trial in very difficult circumstances”, adding that the trial was “impeccably conducted” by Ms Justice Carroll.
It later dismissed an application by her lawyers for a certificate to have a number of questions relating to her trial taken to the Supreme Court. She brought these latest proceedings under the Crime Procedure Act 1993 in an attempt to have her case declared a miscarriage of justice.
