Sir, - Carol Coulter touched on a number of important points concerning the conduct of the child rape case against Nora Wall and Paul McCabe ("Disturbing Questions Raised ...", The Irish Times, July 28th).
However, there are other issues in relation to this case which need to be publicly addressed and explained in the interests of justice being seen to be done:
1. Counsel for the DPP told the Court of Criminal Appeal on July 27th that the main reason he was applying to have the convictions quashed was because, "through inadvertence", a witness had been called by the prosecution in the trial whom the DPP had already decided should not give evidence. Why did the DPP decide that this witness should not be called? Who decided to call the witness despite the DPP's decision to the contrary?
2. It is the general assumption, not publicly contested, that the person concerned was the only corroborating witness in the trial. This person claimed to have seen the rape. In his summing-up Judge Carney warned the trial jury that it would be dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of an injured party. Was not the corroborating evidence given by the witness called by the prosecution against the instructions of the DPP crucial to securing a conviction? Without it, what supporting evidence was there, apart from the contested confession statement of Paul McCabe?
3. How did it escape the notice of the DPP's office around the time of the trial in June that this crucial witness had given evidence against the instructions of the DPP? Presumably, the DPP had a representative in court, apart from counsel. Did nobody at the DPP's office read the papers during and after the trial and wonder who this witness could possibly be?
4. During the sentence hearing on July 23rd, counsel for Nora Wall submitted that there was a "potential miscarriage of justice" in a failure by the prosecution to disclose (a) potentially significant evidence about this witness and (b) that the complainant in the case had alleged that she had been raped in London. Nora Wall's counsel applied for an adjournment of sentencing, or at least a stay until the following week on any sentence imposed, because the Court of Criminal Appeal would be sitting and could consider the issues raised. In this way his client "might not suffer imprisonment unduly or unfairly". However, the prosecution rejected claims of non-disclosure, saying that the Garda had had no knowledge of these matters during its investigation and, in any case, they were not relevant. It "strenuously opposed" the defence application. The judge then went on to sentence Nora Wall to life imprisonment and Paul McCabe to 12 years, saying as he did so that, on the facts of the case, he could find nothing in favour of either accused. He refused leave to appeal.
What happened next was truly astonishing. In the Court of Criminal Appeal only four days later the prosecution conceded that (a) there had been non-disclosure of information regarding the witness (i.e., that the DPP had decided the person should not be called); (b) whatever the significance of the victim's allegation that she had been raped in London, it could not be argued that this information was not relevant; (c) there was another matter concerning the complainant, which he did not reveal in court, of which the defence had not been made aware. On the basis of these facts the DPP applied to have the convictions quashed. The court did so without delay.
In view of all this, it has to be asked why the prosecution did not take the prudent course of supporting the application for a delay in sentencing because important issues touching on the safety of the convictions had been raised and needed to be clarified urgently. At the very least could they not have requested a pause in the proceedings to take instructions from the DPP, when the matters the prosecution were eventually to disclose in the Court of Criminal Appeal might well have come to light?
Is not the consequence of doing neither of those things that Nora Wall and Paul McCabe were sent to jail for a very grievous offence? Additionally, Nora Wall in particular had to suffer the humiliation of the most extensive media coverage, not only concerning the case itself, but about other unrelated matters, including a most lurid and totally uncorroborated allegation headlined in your own edition of July 24th. - Yours, etc.,
Jim Cantwell, Myrtle Park, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.