THE relatives of the two women who were killed by John Gallagher could give evidence relating to the inquiry into his detention which was not in the possession of anyone else, the High Court was told yesterday.
The relatives are making an application to be represented at the inquiry into the continuing detention of Gallagher, who was found guilty but insane of the murders' and is in the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum.
Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for the relatives, told the three judge Divisional Court of the High, Court the application was being made by Mr Patrick Maguire, Cooladawson, Lifford, Co Donegal, on behalf of the relatives.
Gallagher (29), from Lifford, was found guilty but insane in 1989 of the murder of his former girlfriend, Ms Anne Gillespie, and her mother, Ms Annie Gillespie, in the grounds of Sligo General Hospital the previous year. He has been detained in the CMH since then.
He sought an inquiry into his continuing detention and the Divisional Court was formed to hear it. Yesterday, the preliminary issue of whether the relatives of the two women could be represented at the inquiry was heard.
Mr John Rogers SC, for the State and the Attorney General, said they did not intend to release Gallagher. They simply intended over a period of time to permit very short release of some hours duration only.
Gallagher had made several applications for his release and the Supreme Court ruled that it was not a matter for the court, but for the Government or Minister for Justice.
Subsequent to that decision, Mr Maguire, who is an uncle and brother in law respectively of the two murdered women, and his family made oral and written entreaties to the Minister and a petition was also handed in.
The present application derived wholly from newspaper reports. Neither Gallagher nor the State advised the relatives that Gallagher was seeking an inquiry into his detention. His client was extremely anxious to be involved in the proceedings or any process which could lead to Gallagher's release. There had been a history of threats against the family by Gallagher.
The Supreme Court, in February 1991, ruled that, a person found guilty but insane should be kept as a criminal lunatic in such a place as the court directed. The role of the executive after that was that he should be kept until such time it was deemed safe to release him, taking into consideration the public and private interest.
Mr Maguire had an undeniable private interest. He was not just a member of the public. It was ludicrous to say he had no more legal interest than someone who had never met Gallagher.
It was not just the family, there were letters from other people, including the principal of St Columba's School, Stranorlar, and a teacher, Ms Greta Harrison, which had expressed reservations.
Mr Hardiman said their right to be represented depended their having additional evidence. It so happened that Mr Maguire and the family were in a position to give evidence which apparently was not in the decision of anyone else.
The relatives accept Gallagher was asserting his constitutional right to liberty, fully accepted the verdict of Jury. Many aspects of the case were not brought before the court.
Mr Hardiman applied for the right to look at the legal papers overnight. Mr Michael Carson SC, for the CMH, and Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for Gallagher, objected. The court ruled against it.
Mr Rogers said the had been heard as they made oral and written representations this issue. The affidavit sworn by Mr Maguire was hearsay and a greater part was hearsay on hearsay.
Mr Hardiman was seeking go behind the verdict of the Central Criminal Court and to establish there was intent. That what the weight of the affidavit was directed to. There was an acquittal and a general finding that, there was no intent.
Mr Hardiman's application was based on an assertion that it was Gallagher's intention to Mr Maguire. Where did one find that? He referred to events 1988. There was no evidence any present intent.
Mr Rogers said there was a clear duty on his clients to look after the rights of citizens and his clients readily came to court acquiescing in the discharge of that duty. It was a matter for the Minister if Gallagher was a threat to Mr Hardiman's clients. The Government's decision was directed to the safety of all citizens.
The hearing resumes today.