Man on witness security programme loses appeal in High Court

By Ann O'Loughlin

A man who entered the State's witness security programme has lost his appeal over the High Court dismissal of his claims he was treated negligently and that the State failed to live up to its promises to him.

The man, who was a witness in a trial against two men convicted of involvement in organised and subversive crime, sued the Garda Commissioner and State over allegedly failing to abide by an agreement to give him a new identity, money and relocate him abroad.

He claimed he was given verbal representations by gardai when he agreed to give evidence against two IRA men convicted in the Special Criminal Court some years ago.

He said the two men had demanded protection money on behalf of the IRA or they would destroy a business he was involved in. Due to security concerns, he entered the Witness Security Programme (WSP) and claimed he was promised €600,000, a new identity and relocation to a specified country of his choice to start a new life.

While he received two payments, he claimed he never got what was promised and now fears for his safety and security.

Denying the claims, the defendants pleaded the man "blew his cover" on several occasions, brought about a situation where no host country could be asked to take him and went to the media and exposed his situation. They said they entered into a final arrangement with him in 2004 subject to ongoing arrangements for his security and compensated him for his co-operation.

In his High Court judgment last year, with parts redacted for security reasons, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan dismissed the case. Today, a three-judge Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the man's appeal and upheld the High Court judgment.

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, giving the appeal court judgment, rejected the man's claims that the High Court findings of no unfairness in how he was dealt with were "inadequate" and he was entitled to a fresh trial.

Among various findings, the High Court was not satisfied the defendants had promised the man he would, after the SCC trial, be going to a specified country with several hundred thousand euro, that he was not induced to enter into any contract by a misrepresentation and no representation made by a Garda to him was reckless or false.

It also found the man co-operated with the Garda investigation into the allegation of extortion and was deemed a truthful and reliable witness before the Special Criminal Court.

Further findings included the man signed a protocol document admitting him to the WSP but found participation difficult and there was a very serious breakdown in the inter-personal relationship between him and certain gardaí and he failed to comprehend he had to have regard for the WSP's terms, including to "lie low" pending trial.

The High Court also accepted defence evidence the man could not be relocated abroad because those running witness protection programmes in other countries would not have accepted him because he ran the risk of exposing their system.

While the threat to the man's life may potentially always be there, the State acknowledged an ongoing obligation to protect him and there was no basis for the claim his right to bodily integrity was infringed, the High Court also found.

Dismissing the man's arguments he came away from the High Court "unclear and unsure" why he had lost, Mr Justice Hogan said, on the contrary, Mr Justice Gilligan made "key findings of fact" adverse to the man and had fully explained his reasons for his findings and his overall conclusions.