Analysis: The jury in the Brian Fitzgerald murder trial clearly took to heart the judges warning about uncorroborated accomplice evidence, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Editor
The main witness in the trial of the three remaining men accused of the murder of Brian Fitzgerald was himself serving a life sentence for the murder. The evidence against the men was his testimony detailing their involvement in procuring the gun, showing him how to use it, driving him to the scene and pointing out the victim. He was himself the central figure in the crime in which a number of men were involved.
James Martin Cahill also acknowledged that he had told a psychologist that he hoped to make a new life in Australia through the witness protection programme. However, he is not part of the witness protection programme and no evidence was brought forward by the defence that he had received any inducements to give evidence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal has warned about reliance on the evidence of accomplices in the commission of a crime, particularly in the context of the witness protection programme, where the witnesses might be suspected of benefiting from giving evidence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld Paul Ward's appeal against his conviction for the murder of Veronica Guerin because the only evidence against him was that of an accomplice, Charlie Bowden, who had been shown to lie time and again. Commenting on the way the witness protection programme was operating in this case, the court said: "It is questionable whether one could be confident of eliminating all factors which would motivate and encourage liars."
Brian Meehan, however, lost his appeal against conviction for the journalist's murder, because the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the evidence against him of accomplice Russell Warren, who was also in the witness protection programme, was corroborated.
In this judgment, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said the important thing to be said about corroboration is that it was not a prerequisite to a conviction where the main evidence against an accused was that of an accomplice.
A corroboration warning, not corroboration, was the mandatory requirement, he said.
Although there was no evidence in the Fitzgerald case that Cahill was benefiting from giving evidence in the way Warren and Bowden had benefited, there were reasons to be sceptical about his credibility as a witness.
He said he had flashbacks after the murder and he was hearing voices and screaming in his head. He started seeing a psychologist in 2005.
He said he was very concerned to get the evidence right, but got mixed up with another murder that had been planned.
He told defence counsel Conor Devally SC that he had named in a diary about 100 people involved in various crimes, including drug trafficking, murder, arms offences and a trip to Germany to buy radio-controlled car bombs.
However, he also said that some of this was what the voices in his head told him to write.
He claimed he had abused numerous children, but gardaí told the court in the absence of the jury that he had described this abuse in such vague terms that they were under the impression he had been abused himself.
In his charge to the jury, Mr Justice Charleton warned them to be wary of Cahill's evidence, as he had been an accomplice in the murder.
He added that accomplice evidence could be strengthened by corroborating evidence, of which there was none in the case against Anthony Kelly and Desmond Dundon.
He told them they would have to decide whether the evidence against Gary Campion was corroborating evidence.
Cahill was not in the witness protection programme and it is difficult to see what motivation he would have had for making up his evidence against the three accused. The defence case was that he was a compulsive liar.
His own admission that he heard voices and was sometimes confused could either further undermine his credibility or be seen as an honest acknowledgment of his weaknesses that would strengthen his basic claim that his conscience drove him to give evidence.
In the end it appears that the jury listened very carefully to Mr Justice Charleton's warning about corroboration.
There was some corroborative evidence against Campion, but none of significance against Dundon or Kelly.