EVIDENCE given by a loyalist gun runner at a murder trial was tainted, the Appeal Court in Belfast was told yesterday.
The submission was made by a lawyer for Colin Duffy (28), from Lurgan, Co Armagh, who was convicted of murdering ex UDR Sgt John Lyness mainly on identification evidence given by Lindsay Robb.
Five months later, Robb - who had given his evidence from behind screens and was referred to only as Witness C - was convicted in Scotland of gun running for the UVF and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
The Crown subsequently announced that he could no longer be regarded as a credible witness, and said his evidence was not being relied upon at Duffy's appeal, which began yesterday before the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Brian Hutton, and Lord Justices Carswell and Nicholson.
The case has attracted worldwide attention. Organisations represented in court yesterday included the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Amnesty International, the American Lawyers' Alliance for Justice and the US Voice of the Innocent.
Former Taoiseach Mr Albert Reynolds was also in court but later denied a suggestion that his presence was provocative.
"I am here in response to a personal appeal from Colin Duffy's mother, who feels that I can give them moral support in a case in which they believe there has been a miscarriage of justice," said Mr Reynolds.
Colin Duffy's family and supporters believe very strongly that he is innocent and I will be interested to see what he outcome of his appeal will be.
Duffy's wife, Susan, said as she went into court: "Despite the fact that I do not have a lot of faith in the non jury Diplock courts system, I am cautiously optimistic that we will get the result we want.
"I have spoken to Colin and he, too, is hopeful that he will be freed."
Duffy's lawyer, Mr Arthur Harvey QC, told the Appeal Court that the Crown's reliance on the evidence of Witness C (Robb) at the trial "introduced a pollution into the stream of justice which cannot be cured or eradicated by simply extracting Witness C from the case".
Mr Harvey told the three judges that they must assess the effect Robb's evidence had not only on Duffy's conviction, but also in relation to the evidence of other witnesses.
Mr Harvey was dismissive of other identification evidence given by a man known as Witness B. "This witness had approximately one third of a second in which to identify the appellant, and from a distance of 80 feet," said Mr Harvey.
"This witness was driving a car which had tinted windows and quite simply had not the time to make a reliable identification."
The appeal continues today.