Court rules evidence against explosives accused inadmissible

Crucial evidence against a Monaghan man charged with the possession of explosives, including a statement by him admitting responsibility for the same, has been ruled inadmissible by the Special Criminal Court.

The non-jury court ruled today that investigating gardaí failed to follow proper procedure when questioning Martin Connolly (aged 26) as to his alleged possession of an explosive substance and that a statement given and interviews conducted on this basis were unlawful.

Mr Connolly, of Mullantimore, Tydavnet, has pleaded not guilty to knowingly having in his possession a Novital Magnum electric cereal mill and ammonium nitrate at his home between September 8 and 11, 2010 inclusive.

At the opening of the prosecution case, counsel for the State, Mr Tom O’Connell SC, said the court would hear evidence that a substance found in an electric mill housed in a shed close to the house was ammonium nitrate powder and that it was ground for the purposes of making an explosive substance.

He said that the accused man was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an unlawful organisation and throughout most of his detention was interviewed on this subject.

Only on the second day of his detention, in his eighth interview with gardaí, was Mr Connolly asked about the unlawful possession of explosives.

Mr O’Connell said the court would hear that immediately after the termination of this interview, Connolly gave a short statement in which he admitted to the possession of explosives in his garage and stated that his partner had no knowledge of the presence of this material.

The non-jury court then heard evidence in a “trial within a trial” after the defence challenged the legality of Mr Connolly’s detention and the admissibility of his interviews on the unlawful possession of an explosive substance.

Counsel for Mr Connolly, Mr Brendan Grehan SC, argued that gardaí failed to comply with their legal requirement to involve a “member in charge” or senior garda officer in the continued detention of his client for an offence other than that which he had been arrested for.

Mr O’Connell however, told the court that Mr Connolly’s detention was lawful because the suspicion he was a member of an unlawful organisation persisted throughout.

He submitted that the necessity to involve the member in charge applied only in cases where gardai ceased to have a suspicion in relation to the offence for which a person was originally arrested.

Reading from a written judgement delivered this afternoon, presiding judge Mr Justice Paul Butler said that the court found that the continued detention of Mr Connolly for an offence other than his alleged membership of an illegal organisation and his questioning on these matters was unlawful.

He said that the statement given by Mr Connolly admitting the possession of explosives in his garage cannot be separated from his interview on the alleged possession of explosive substances and was therefore inadmissible.

Mr Justice Butler said the court had no evidence from a “member-in-charge” or senior officer that gardaí had reasonable grounds for believing the continued detention of Mr Connolly was necessary for the investigation of his alleged possession of explosives.

He said that the law on the matter as outlined in Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act was written in “very plain” words and was not open to the construction urged by Mr O’Connell.

Mr Justice Butler, sitting with Judge Alison Lindsay and Judge Cormac Dunne, said the court would list the matter for mention tomorrow.