It seems reasonable to wonder why gardaí did not see fit to pursue the matter of a non-existent alibi, writes JOHN WATERS
THE REJECTION by the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) of Catherine Nevin’s application to have her murder conviction declared a miscarriage of justice appears to be the last word on this case in this jurisdiction. There are many intriguing aspects to the judgment, but in the space available to me here I wish to focus on just one.
This relates to the evidence of a new witness, who came forward in 2008 after reading an article of mine in this newspaper. Although he was named publicly when he gave evidence to the CCA, he is referred to in the judgment as “T”. His evidence related to an individual, referred to in the judgment as “C”, who, though not previously publicly associated with the case, was at one time questioned by gardaí about his whereabouts on the night of Tom Nevin’s murder – March 18th, 1996. He told gardaí he had been working that night as a bouncer in a nightclub run by T.
T testified that, when approached by a named garda and asked whether he could support this alibi, he said he could not, that his club never opened on the night after a bank holiday. Shortly afterwards, T was contacted by C, who asked to meet him in a public house in Finglas.
There, T met C and a number of others, including Gerard Heapes, later one of three key witnesses against Nevin. In the company of the others, C told T he needed an alibi for the night in question. T said he had already informed gardaí that the club had been closed. C suggested T might contact gardaí and say that, having checked his diary, he realised he had made a mistake. T kicked for touch, saying he would see “what happens” if gardaí got back to him. He heard no more about it.
From a distance, he formed the view that Nevin was guilty as charged, and that C’s connection was academic. When he read a column I wrote about the Nevin case in January 2008, however, he changed his mind.
The CCA devotes just two of its judgment’s 60 pages to T’s evidence, finally dismissing it as “irrelevant”.
“It is not at all clear,” the judgment states, “in what way the evidence of Mr T, taken at its height, might be regarded as weakening or creating a reasonable doubt about the prosecution case as actually made . . . Even if one considers that Mr T’s evidence established a link between C and Mr Heapes, that would not be a surprising matter and would not be one capable of casting a doubt on the prosecution case.
“The person who shot Tom Nevin was never apprehended or charged and is presumably still at large. No doubt there are circumstances of suspicion attaching to the actual killer, and to others who did not in fact kill Mr Nevin. The gardaí, as they were bound to do, considered various suspects, and took certain steps to make certain enquiries about them, but without succeeding in building a criminal case against anyone. There is no logic in relying on the steps taken by the gardaí to find the actual shooter and suggesting that they, or a suspect’s reaction to that process, in some way casts doubt on the case against Nevin. It does not do so when this case is properly understood.”
On the face of things, this seems logical. And yet it misses the point of T’s evidence, which related not to the mindset or machinations of C, but to the implicit failure of the investigators to pursue a suspicious circumstance.
The court states it would not be surprising if C and Heapes were known to one another. This may be true, but it is beside the point. It is far from irrelevant to this case that Heapes, who would become one of the key witnesses against Nevin, was a short time after the murder seen in the company of a man who was unsuccessfully seeking to concoct an alibi for himself in respect of that selfsame crime.
Had either Heapes or C been charged in connection with the murder, it is certain that such evidence would have been regarded as crucial. Had it come to light at the time of Nevin’s trial, it is difficult to see how it could have been deemed irrelevant.
At the very least it seems reasonable to wonder why gardaí did not see fit to pursue the matter of C’s non-existent alibi. And, in view of the recurring mention throughout this case of subversive and criminal connections, it is troubling that the State relied on the evidence of Heapes to convict Catherine Nevin, while seemingly dismissing the fact that a close associate of his, when questioned in respect of the same crime, proffered an alibi that failed to stand up.
The relevance of T’s evidence to Nevin, therefore, is that it raises, not for the first time, suspicions about the State’s case against her.