Eager murder trial - DPP must clarify British court move

WIDESPREAD criticism of the DPP and the Garda Commissioner over the decision to hold the Georgina Eager murder trial in London rather than Dublin is entirely warranted.

Both the public and the Eager family, who have borne their ordeal with great dignity and courage, remain unconvinced by the arguments put forward by Justice Minister Michael McDowell.

While the family have warmly welcomed the life sentence verdict, they are understandably critical of the failure to extradite Christopher Newman to be tried in Dublin where the murder occurred.

The defence offered by Mr McDowell of the DPP’s decision takes no account of the unimaginable trauma and considerable expense suffered by Georgina’s family throughout the five-week trial in London.

Arguably, Minister McDowell is open to question in claiming that the prosecution had a better chance of success in England because statements were taken from Newman by the British police when he was arrested in London. Why? The verdict made it abundantly clear that there could hardly be a more clear-cut case of murder. Besides, the police statements would be as admissible in a Dublin trial as the evidence gathered in Ireland was in London.

Closing ranks, the Crown Prosecution Service in Britain has contradicted the Eager family claim that British authorities sought to have Newman tried in Dublin. But Georgina’s father had no reason to fabricate the information given to him by British police after the trial. Indeed, the trial decision was all the more perplexing because the bulk of the evidence was gathered in the Republic. Most of the key witnesses, including the State Pathologist, were also in Ireland.

Yet they had to be brought to London for the trial. Why? That fundamental question will not go away until a full explanation is elicited from the Irish authorities.

Notwithstanding the independence of the DPP, the very least Georgina’s parents deserve is to be told why the family had to be uprooted and subjected to the trauma and expense of having to move to London for the trial.

Similarly, the Garda Commissioner should tell them why an extradition application was not served to bring the murderer back to Ireland for prosecution.

Adding to the confusion caused by the decision to prosecute the trial in London, it has since emerged that a garda investigation was already under way here into Newman’s alleged detention of his former partner, a Romanian woman. Will the facts relating to that case ever come into the public arena?

In another disturbing case involving the gardaí, a public inquiry is warranted into the murder of Dundalk man Seamus Ludlow in order to establish whether or not a garda probe was blocked as alleged by his family.

In keeping with the separation of powers and the independence of the DPP, the incumbent is not required to explain decisions and it is important to guard against political interference with the office.

Significantly, however, the DPP breached the wall of secrecy surrounding his office last year when he apologised to the husband of a woman fatally injured in a crash which the State failed to prosecute for alleged driving offences.

The public applauded signals from the DPP that the information deficit would be remedied in certain instances. On compassionate grounds, greater accountability, transparency and explanation are sometimes warranted.

The DPP should now put his money where his mouth is and tell both the Eager family and the public why a trial that could and should have proceeded in Dublin was held in London?