COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL DPP -v- Colm MaguireJudgment delivered on May 7th by Ms Justice Fidelma Macken. Composition of court: Ms Justice Macken, Mr Justice Murphy, Mr Justice de Valera
JUDGMENT
The applicant, Colm Maguire, was refused leave to appeal against his conviction for IRA membership by the Special Criminal Court on October 18th, 2006, for which he was sentenced to six years in prison. The court found that the Special Criminal Court was entitled to accept the belief-evidence of the chief superintendent who gave it, and that this court had adequately considered defence evidence.
BACKGROUND
Maguire was convicted of membership of the IRA on the evidence of a chief superintendent. He denied membership and gave explanations for his conduct and movements on the day in question. These were rejected by the court.
Diarmuid McGuinness SC, for Maguire, contended that the judges erred in law in giving weight to the evidence of the chief superintendent, in the light of his client's denial of membership of an unlawful organisation on the date in question.
He also contended that they had erred in law in concluding that his client had given misleading answers to questions put to him, and that they did not give due weight to his defence. He said that they did not apply correctly certain jurisprudence of the European Court on Human Rights relating to anonymous evidence.
Mary Ellen Ring SC, for the DPP, pointed out that there was already extensive jurisprudence on the issue of the evidence of a chief superintendent and the weight to be attached to it.
DECISION
to this issue, Ms Justice Macken said that the conclusion which the trial court took in finding that the statement of belief was truthful was capable of being supported by the evidence. "While it is always preferable for trial judges to indicate the extent of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a particular witness, the absence of such a statement is not ipso facto fatal to a trial," she said.
"This court finds that the approach of the trial judges . . . was acceptable.""
Referring to the claim that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights was not adequately considered, the court referred to other judgments in which this issue had also been examined and the argument rejected. None of the arguments put forward here supported the applicant's contention in this case either, Ms Justice Macken said.
Turning to the issue of the consideration of the applicant's defence, she said that the court did not have to decide whether it would consider, even on the same facts, that the applicant's evidence was misleading.
What had to be considered was whether it had been properly considered by the trial court and whether it could legitimately reject it.
"This court is satisfied that the trial court took into account all of the evidence tendered on behalf of the applicant, including his denial of membership on oath. Their conclusions on that evidence were nevertheless correct in law," she said.
The judges were entitled to reject the applicant's explanations for his actions. The court refused the application.
The full text of this judgment is available on www.courts.ie
Diarmuid McGuinness SC and Michael Bowman BL, instructed by Michael Finucane solicitor, Dublin (for the appellant). Tom O'Connell SC and Paul Greene BL, instructed by the Chief Prosecution Solicitor (for the DPP).