Nevin lawyer: Witnesses were state informers

CONVICTED murderer Catherine Nevin’s lawyer said material not given to her defence team at the time would have indicated that key prosecution witnesses were paid state informers.

An application yesterday by Nevin to have her conviction for the murder of her husband Tom Nevin declared a miscarriage of justice was adjourned to March 3.

An appeal against her conviction was dismissed in 2003 by the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA), but Nevin has brought proceedings under the Crime Procedure Act 1993 to have her case declared a miscarriage of justice.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman heard the DPP required some time to consider the application being made by Nevin.

Sean Gillane BL, for the DPP, said some of the applications were unusual and the state side would be asking the court to say whether there was a prima facie (at first view) case to be made out.

Nevin’s lawyers contend that documents, including Garda security files on witnesses Gerry Heapes, John Jones and William McClean, are relevant and would assist her in undermining the credibility of the three men as well as another state witness Patrick Russell.

The material, the defence says, includes security files indicating that McClean was a suspect in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings of 1974.

Nevin claims McClean had during the trial denied he had any paramilitary connections, but that Garda Special Branch files going back to 1974 would have an effect on his credibility in that regard.

Mr Justice Hardiman said it appeared the application is based on the contents of the Barron report on the bombings and on information from what was described as “a high-level journalist”.

Anne Fitzgibbon, solicitor for Nevin, said the Barron report information related to Mr McClean being a paid state informer while the “high-level journalist” information related to Mssrs Jones and Heapes also being state informers.

Mr Justice Hardiman noted the disclosure of this information (to the Nevin side) had been considered by the trial judge, but was deemed privileged or not relevant and therefore should not be disclosed. Ms Fitzgibbon said the way this had been considered at the trial “does not make sense”.

Mr Justice Hardiman adjourned the case to allow the DPP to respond to Nevin’s application.