THE case of John Kinsella, who claims to have been wrongly convicted of possession of explosives in Britain, is to be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal by the Home Office.
The announcement came yesterday, and follows a lengthy campaign by the family and friends of Mr Kinsella, now aged 52. He was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment on February 10th, 1994, for possession of explosives with intent to endanger life.
He was one of three men convicted for the bombing of Warrington gas holder station in 1993. The other two were his nephew Denis Kinsella and Pairic Mac Fhloinn.
Kinsella was questioned after the arrest of his nephew and Mac Fhloinn. He told the police he had hidden a bag for his nephew. It was found to contain explosives, two guns and ammunition, and he was charged. At the trial he was described as an IRA quarter master.
John Kinsella had lived in Britain for 35 years. He described himself in court as "a semi retired minor villain". He said he had believed the bag contained stolen antiques, and agreed to hide it for £200. He said, and his wife backed this up in court, he was opposed to the IRA.
The evidence against him, apart from the bag which he told police about, was a photograph of his son, also called John, taken 10 years earlier in a house in Belfast in front of the photograph of an IRA memorial.
After his conviction a campaign began for his release, spearheaded by Mr Paddy Loftus, who did not know Mr Kinsella but was convinced this was a miscarriage of Justice. Kinsella's MP, Mr Alan Simpson, the former Yorkshire police chief, Mr John Stalker, and the Fianna Fail spokesman on prisoners Mr Eamon O Cuiv, were among those he convinced.
In 1995 Kinsella succeeded in appealing against his sentence (leave to appeal against conviction was refused) and it was reduced to 16 years.
That year also the Home Secretary received representations on his behalf. These included a letter from Mac Fhloinn in which he admitted his own part in the bombing, but confirmed Kinsella was [not a member of the IRA and that his claim about being duped into hiding the bag was true.
Further representations included a statement by his son that the photograph of the memorial had no political significance for him or his father.
These two documents constitute the new evidence which the Home Secretary is now asking the Court of Criminal Appeal to consider.
Mr O Cuiv said last night: "I have always been satisfied in my own mind he was never a member of the IRA. He was totally unwittingly involved in it."
Praising Mr Loftus, he said: "This shows that, slow as they may be results can be got by this kind of work."