Travesty of justice must never reoccur

THE sense of public dismay following the aborted murder trial, from which the accused walked free because six witnesses suffered collective amnesia in the face of suspected intimidation, reflects the gravity of a case which threatens to undermine the foundations of the criminal legal system.

While the full implications of the collapse of this trial have yet to emerge, the debacle has created widespread concern over the possible repercussions for similar cases yet to come before the courts.

Undoubtedly, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the prosecution of serious crime. A legal crisis could result, as the collapse of this case is certain to be scrutinised and taken on board by gangland figures across the country.

Setting a worrying precedent, the case fell because of the sudden and inexplicable failure of all the witnesses involved to remember evidence they had formally given to the gardaí.

As a result, 19-year-old Liam Keane was acquitted of the murder of 19-year-old Eric Leamy in Limerick in August 2001, a charge he denied. On the sacrosanct doctrine that a person is innocent until proven guilty, the accused has walked free.

Because the case was relinquished by the judge on a legal plea of nolle prosequi, the question of the matter being dropped on grounds of double jeopardy does not arise. However, given the detailed nature of the book of evidence prepared by the gardaí, it seems unlikely that fresh evidence will be brought against Mr Keane.

Nevertheless, there remains a distinct possibility that perjury charges may be levelled against the witnesses in question. If found guilty, they could face 25 years in jail.

Without pre-empting the outcome of any future proceedings, it is imperative for Justice Minister Michael McDowell to undertake a major review of the court system. The issue must be treated as a matter of grave urgency to ensure such a travesty of justice is not repeated.

In the interests of law and order, the farcical scenario witnessed in the court must be addressed. Not only does the outcome represent a direct challenge to the legal system, it goes to the heart of this country’s

democratic process. Clearly, the situation raises major questions which must be confronted head-on by the administration.

It is widely suspected, but as yet unproven, that intimidation lay behind the sequence of events at the Central Criminal Court, a scenario the likes of which, according to Mr Justice Paul Carney had “never been encountered before”.

Indeed, the two-fingered gesture outside the courts reflected contempt for a system upon which the vast majority of people depend for safety and security.

If anything, the sense of worry evident across the country will be intensified in Limerick where decent citizens fear for their lives amid gangland feuding between rival families.

Because of the totally unacceptable actions of a few, Limerick has gained an unenviable reputation for violence. As a major centre of the drugs trade, its regrettable image as ‘stab city’ has been overtaken by something far more sinister.

There are compelling arguments for the administration to adopt a special approach to the Limerick situation. At present, relatively few gardaí are available to police the beat in the city because so many uniformed members of the force are engaged in the fight against serious crime.

Unless the garda resources are strengthened, the situation on the ground could deteriorate rapidly in the aftermath of the murder trial collapse.

The urgency of addressing the crisis is underlined as witnesses may now become increasingly reluctant to give evidence in criminal cases. Many feel exposed because their names and addresses are recorded in the Book of Evidence, which is open to scrutiny by defendants.

Because of the real risk of intimidation, there is a compelling case for the gardaí holding back certain information which could expose a witness to insidious pressure. This is borne out by the warning of the Victim Support group, which knows of several instances where people were fearful to come forward with evidence.

Clearly, if the frustrating events which led to the collapse of this case were repeated in future murder trials, the courts would degenerate into anarchy.

In no way could intimidation of witnesses ever be tolerated. Indeed, it was the risk of intimidation to jury members which led to the creation of the Special Criminal Court. However, though it operates without a jury, it cannot function in the absence of hard evidence upon which judgments can be handed down.

The absence of evidence in the Keane case presents a direct challenge to both the courts and the Government. A sound legal framework must be devised to enable the gardaí to do their job without fearing that witnesses may be scared into silence.

If the authorities fail to take strong action in the wake of the Limerick murder trial fiasco, it will have profound repercussions for the judicial process.

Above all, there is an urgent need to deliver a justice system where witnesses can give their evidence without fear.