THE relatives of two women shot dead eight years ago by Mr John Gallagher have real fears" for their safety if he is freed from the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, the High Court was told yesterday. Mr Justice Kelly was told there had been a history of threats and assaults by Mr Gallagher and that he had threatened to kill an uncle and brother in law of the two dead women on his release.
In 1989, Mr Gallagher (29), Lifford, Co Donegal, was found guilty but insane of the murders of his former girlfriend, Ms Anne Gillespie (18), and her mother, Mrs Annie Gillespie, in the grounds of Sligo General Hospital in 1988.
Their relatives want to be represented at an inquiry due to start in the High Court on June 20th at which Mr Gallagher will challenge his continued detention in the Central Mental Hospital. The director of the hospital, Dr Charles Smith, told the High Court two months ago he could not justify Mr Gallagher's continued detention on grounds of his "imminent dangerousness because he did not think it existed. He was not ill.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly gave liberty to the relatives to serve notice of their wishes to be represented at the inquiry on Mr Gallagher to the director of the hospital and the Attorney General. The judge said the question of whether they would be represented at the inquiry would have to be determined on June 20th before the substantive hearing. He said the application raised a number of important points and it would be inappropriate to decide now on an ex-parte application.
Mr Peter Nolan, counsel for the relatives, said the application was being made on behalf of Mr Patrick Maguire, of Cooladawson, Lifford, Co Donegal, a member of the family of the women who were murdered. He was seeking a determination that Mr Maguire was a proper person to be joined as a party in the proceedings.
Solicitor Mr Seamus Gunn, in an affidavit on behalf of Mr Maguire, said the inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution concerned the legality of Mr Gallagher's detention, which must have regard to the consequences of Mr Gallagher's release on the constitutional rights of others.
Mr Gunn said Mr Maguire was present at the killings. Mr Gallagher placed a loaded gun to his head and pulled the trigger but the gun did not discharge. He made a further attempt to discharge the gun, which again failed.
Mr Maguire and his family were represented at the trial by counsel acting as an observer. No determination was made by the judge as to the status or locus standi and representation of Mr Maguire, despite an application to that effect.
Mr Gunn said there had been a history of threats and assaults by Mr Gallagher against Mr Maguire and his family. Mr Gallagher had threatened to kill Mr Maguire on or after his release. This and other fears which Mr Maguire had were relevant to the conduct of any inquiry into Mr Gallagher's detention.
Mr Gunn said that during Mr Gallagher's trial, none of these matters the assaults on the Maguire family, the death threats, Mr Gallagher's behaviour to the Maguire family and the fears of the family was put before the court. Mr Maguire feared such matters would not be put before the High Court in the inquiry into Mr Gallagher's detention.
Mr Gallagher was invoking his rights under Article 40.4 of the Constitution which must be balanced against the personal rights of the Maguire family as enshrined in Articles 40.3 (1) and 40.3 (2). It was not Mr Maguire's intention to restrict the rights of Mr Gallagher or to interfere with the procedure enshrined in Article 40.4, but to vindicate and balance the legitimate concerns of Mr Maguire about a decision that may affect the constitutional rights of him and his family.