Nevin returns to centre stage with murder appeal

DOUBT is the enemy of conviction and it is a foe Catherine Nevin needs as a friend next week when she tries to overturn the guilty verdict and life sentence imposed on her for the murder of her husband Tom.

Unless her legal team can convince the Court of Criminal Appeal there are doubts about the fairness of the trial that convicted her, Mrs Nevin will soon mark her third year behind bars under a sentence that could run to 2012.

The jury who found her guilty of murder and three charges of soliciting men to kill Tom displayed little ambivalence when they returned to the courtroom on the evening of April 11, 2000, to deliver their decision.

They had deliberated over a record five days, leading to speculation that they were hopelessly split but their conclusions unanimous on the murder and one of the soliciting charges and majorities of 11 to 1 on the others were firm and united.

Next Tuesday, Catherine Nevin's lawyers will try to shake that certainty with a series of challenges to the manner in which the trial progressed.

A major issue for them is the fact that the trial went ahead when it did given what they claim was sensational and adverse publicity surrounding the case and their client.

Two juries were discharged the first because a juror had to withdraw for personal reasons and the second because the jury room was found not to be soundproof. Up to the time they were appointed, the defence team will argue, the third jury were ordinary members of the public soaking up the saturation coverage of the trial in every newspaper and radio and television bulletin.

Ms Justice Carroll acknowledged some of those concerns at the time by making an unprecedented ruling that newspapers refrain from carrying descriptions of Mrs Nevin who was attracting intense commentary about her highly-groomed personal appearance and apparent emotional detachment from the proceedings.

But the defence may argue that in making the ruling, the judge accepted their argument that the publicity was damaging and that if she considered it to be damaging, she should have postponed the trial.

Another important question for the defence is the disclosure of documents relating to Mrs Nevin, her husband, their Co Wicklow pub Jack Whites Inn where the murder took place and key prosecution witnesses.

On June 6, 2000 when Mrs Nevin was returned to court for sentencing on the soliciting charges (the murder conviction carried an immediate, mandatory life sentence), her legal team revealed that exactly a week earlier, they had been sent a letter telling them a document had not been disclosed to them by the prosecution.

The letter stated that a document existed which showed Jack Whites had been on a list of pubs under garda surveillance because of suspected links to the IRA.

The pub was targeted for attention because suspected members of the terrorist organisation had frequented a pub previously owned by Tom Nevin, the Barry House in Finglas, but it was taken off the list in 1991 and excluded from further investigation.

The DPP viewed the document and concluded it was not relevant to the case but Mrs Nevin's team argued otherwise their client had given evidence, in what at the time seemed an outlandish claim, that her husband was murdered by the IRA.

"It (the document) would have tended to strengthen the possibility her late husband might have been murdered by the IRA or people associated with them or that his murder might reasonably have been caused as a result of his activities on behalf of the IRA," Mrs Nevin's barrister Paddy MacEntee complained.

Details of the surveillance operation were not the only documentation kept from the defence. They were aware of the existence of Special Branch files on one of the key prosecution witnesses but the prosecution argued successfully they should not be disclosed on grounds of national security.

As a result, the jury did not know that John Jones one of the three men solicited to kill Tom Nevin had been arrested in 1994 under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, a catch-all piece of legislation most commonly used to detain suspected subversives.

Taken in conjunction with the surveillance document(s) the defence may argue that the Special Branch files carry a new significance.

Mrs Nevin's team also take issue with aspects of Ms Justice Carroll's handling of the trial. They claim she was wrong to allow the evidence for all the charges be heard together, arguing the only evidence linking Mrs Nevin to the murder was the alleged attempts at soliciting.

On this point they refer to he prosecution who accepted in their summing there was no forensic or direct evidence to implicate Mrs Nevin Gardaí never suspected she physically carried out the shooting and the fact the person who pulled the trigger was not caught was always a weakness in the prosecution case.

Mrs Nevin's lawyers are also critical of Ms Justice Carroll's final remarks to the jury before they were sent to consider their verdict. They say her comments were unbalanced in favour of the prosecution.

A dozen or so other points were raised by the team in June 2000 and it remains to be seen how far they have developed their arguments in the interim.

The outcome of the appeal has significance beyond the fate of Catherine Nevin who, given her age (52 at the end of this month) and good behaviour in prison, will have the possibility of supervised early release as early as 2007.

Tom Nevin's brothers and sisters had Catherine's share of the proceeds of the sale of Jack Whites after his death frozen and are awaiting the conclusion of the case before continuing with a court case aimed at confiscating the money for good.

After a series of embarrassments over prosecutions and convictions in the Veronica Guerin murder trials, the gardaí also badly need this one to stick.

Mrs Nevin's trial entered the record books not only as one of the longest in Irish legal history but as the only one in memory with two false starts involving the discharging of two juries.

When it finally got under way for a third time on Valentine's Day 2000, it was to lead to more than 30 days of direct evidence, a week of summing up and five days of jury deliberations.

The appeal is expected to take at most a few days and Mrs Nevin's team have indicated she will not be attending court