An appeal by Patrick Gillane against his conviction and eight-year jail sentence for soliciting two men to murder his wife was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday.
Counsel for Gillane submitted that the conviction rested exclusively on the uncorroborated evidence of two people. Judgment was reserved.
Gillane (36), a part-time farmer and long-distance lorry driver, from Glenbrack, Gort, Co Galway, was sentenced at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in December 1997 following a six-day trial.
He was found guilty of soliciting Mr Christopher Bolger and Mr Michael Doyle to murder his wife, Philomena, of Beechlawn House, Glebe, Caltra, Co Galway, on dates unknown between January 1st, 1994 and January 31st, 1994.
During his trial, Gillane pleaded not guilty and denied having met the men. A jury of eight women and four men brought in their verdict after an absence of about 90 minutes.
Mrs Gillane's body was found in the boot of a car at Athlone train station on May 18th, 1994, a week after she was reported missing. Nobody has been convicted of her murder.
In the appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday, Mr Eamon Leahy SC, for Gillane, referred to evidence given by Mr Bolger in which he said he had a microchip in his head and people could read his mind. Evidence of visual identification by such a witness could not be regarded as safe or satisfactory.
Mr Leahy added that Mr Bolger had given evidence that the man who approached him in relation to soliciting had had a black moustache, while Gillane had given evidence that he had never in his life had a moustache. That evidence had not been challenged. Mr Bolger had also stated that Gillane had "hazel in his eyes". Gillane had given evidence that his eyes were blue.
Mr Doyle had given no description to the gardai of the person whom he had identified as being Gillane. He had seen TV footage of Mrs Gillane's funeral in May 1994 and had gone to the gardai. Referring to other factors, Mr Leahy said that at the outset of the trial an application was made to exclude all witnesses from the court until they were required to give evidence. In the course of Mr Bolger's evidence, a detective garda in charge of him entered the court.
The detective was called forward before the court and accepted he was aware of the order excluding witnesses from the court. It was not suggested that he did anything other than observe but having regard to his proximity to the witness, it was, in the context of the case, undesirable.
Mr Edward Comyn SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that the form of indictment in the case was correct. Only one offence had been committed and there had been only one solicitation. There was acceptable evidence to allow the case to go to the jury. The jury had been clearly directed in relation to the evidence of Mr Bolger and Mr Doyle. The jury had to look at both witnesses separately to see whether they would or would not accept their evidence. Counsel said an identification parade had been refused by the accused. Identification had come before any Garda investigation.