IRA conviction quashed on appeal
Sean Farrell, aged 28, of Kilfenora Road, Crumlin, Dublin, was convicted at the Special Criminal Court in December 2012 of IRA membership on July 7, 2011. He had always maintained his innocence.
His appeal was supported by independent TDs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace who were both present in court for the verdict. Speaking afterwards, Ms Daly said they were delighted with the decision. They had visited Mr Farrell in prison.
Yesterday the three-judge Court of Criminal Appeal quashed Mr Farrell’s conviction after finding the Special Criminal Court erred by failing to disregard evidence given on behalf of the prosecution by a Garda chief superintendent.
During the trial, the chief superintendent stated he had confidential information Mr Farrell was involved in a “litany of incidents … as an active member of the IRA over the last number of years”.
Lawyers for Mr Farrell said they were never informed such evidence would be given during the trial. They argued that this was prejudicial and rendered Mr Farrell’s conviction as unsafe.
Padraig O’Dwyer, counsel for Mr Farrell, argued what was “manifestly prejudicial” evidence, given under cross-examination by Chief Superintendent Diarmuid O’Sullivan, should have been notified to the accused in advance of the trial.
The DPP opposed the appeal and argued the conviction should be left undisturbed.
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman dismissed the DPP’s application for a retrial, on the grounds it would be oppressive. The court noted a retrial would not take place for more than a year. Mr Farrell served two years and three months of the sentence.
The court heard that with good behaviour, Mr Farrell would be due for release in five months’ time.
In quashing the conviction, the appeal court found “the salient fact” in the case was that no notice of the material the chief superintendent “was eager to put before the court” was given to the defence.
If such evidence was to be used the defence should have been put on notice. This is one of the essentials of a fair trial, the court held.
The only way such material could be used was if the DPP sought to seek to serve a statement of additional evidence and have the case adjourned. If the material was not to be used, it should have been made clear to the he court that such evidence should be disregarded.
