Mr Colm Murphy, the only person to be convicted in connection with the 1998 Omagh bombing, had his conviction quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday. A retrial has been ordered.
Mr Murphy (52) was jailed for 14 years by the non-jury Special Criminal Court in early 2002 for his role in the Omagh tragedy on the afternoon of August 15th, 1998.
The builder and publican, of Jordan's Corner, Ravensdale, Dundalk, Co Louth, appealed both his conviction and sentence in a hearing before Christmas at the three-judge court of appeal.
Forty grounds of appeal were lodged on behalf of Mr Murphy but only two of them were upheld in yesterday's decision.
Giving judgment, Mr Justice Kearns, presiding at the Court of Criminal Appeal and sitting with Mr Justice McMenamin and Mr Justice Clarke, said the court had decided that the conviction was "unsafe" on those two grounds.
The first ground related to the Special Criminal Court's approach to the altering of Garda interview notes in the case and the evidence given on those by two gardaí.
The second ground was the appeal court's view that the Special Criminal Court had engaged in an "invasion of a presumption of innocence" because of its regard of prior convictions.
It had been submitted on behalf of Mr Murphy that the court had failed to either grant a direction or acquit the accused where there was evidence before the court that police witnesses had altered notes of written interviews and had lied under oath.
It was also argued the court breached his entitlement to a presumption of innocence by having regard to inadmissible evidence of previous convictions.
Mr Murphy's conviction on January 22nd, 2002, was for conspiracy to cause an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property.
Following yesterday's judgment, terms for bail were set but counsel for Mr Murphy said his personal circumstances had changed since his arrest.
He had been financially ruined since his arrest, the court was told. The court remanded Mr Murphy in custody pending a bail application in the Special Criminal Court, likely to be made next week. His case will also be mentioned in the Court of Criminal Appeal on Friday next when counsel may apply for costs in relation to the previous trial.
It is not known when Mr Murphy's new trial will take place in the Special Criminal Court. It could be late this year or early next year when the retrial is held.
Lawyers for the DPP, in opposing the appeal, had submitted that Mr Murphy's conviction of conspiring to cause an explosion was both safe and satisfactory despite "a difficulty" which arose in relation to the evidence of two gardaí found to have perjured themselves.
They argued that the Special Criminal Court had been satisfied there was no interlinking between those two gardaí and four other investigating gardaí and that there was no legal basis for claiming that established wrongdoing by one member of an investigation invalidated an entire investigation.
Counsel for the DPP also argued that a garda had given evidence that he believed Mr Murphy's mobile phone was used in connection with the transport of a bomb to Omagh.
On behalf of Mr Murphy, Mr Michael O'Higgins SC challenged the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of evidence taken during those periods. A huge element of his submissions relate to what counsel described as the fact that two gardaí had falsified interview notes and had committed "massive perjury."
Mr O'Higgins attacked the Special Criminal Court's finding that the State had produced corroborative evidence of his guilt. The Special Criminal Court had identified nine factors which it found were corroborative of the alleged statements of admission.
He argued that there was either no corroboration of the alleged statements of admission or less corroboration than that which had been held to exist by the Special Criminal Court.
In the Court of Criminal Appeal's 53-page judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Kearns said it was satisfied the alteration to the notes of one of the interviews in the case was of a nature as to raise an issue or question as to the extent to which other officers might or might not have been involved to some degree in collusion, at least to the extent of correcting an initial error and facilitating the filing of an amended third page in the material section of the notes.
This was not to say that any conspiracy or significant wrongdoing which involved other members of the investigation team did in fact take place or that any particular scenario of what may have happened was more probable than another, added Mr Justice Kearns.
The test at this point of the case for the court was to determine, having excised the evidence which had been shown to be tainted, whether the case was still one in which a notional reasonable jury properly charged could convict.
A direction should be granted in a case where the court determined that no reasonable jury properly charged could convict.
Mr Justice Kearns said the Court of Criminal Appeal did not consider that the court of trial had brought to the issue of the possible contamination of evidence or to the evaluation of "surviving" Garda evidence that degree of extra critical analysis which was surely warranted having regard to the development which had occurred in relation to two gardaí.
Alternatively, if the court was taking on board such concerns, the requirement to expressly adopt a critical approach on this account and to state that it was so doing did not appear on the face of the judgment.
The appeal court believed the court of trial misdirected itself by having regard to possible explanations for which there was no evidence in support and for failing to give due consideration to other evidence and circumstances which might have provided a proper foundation for the conclusion arrived at by the court.
By favouring one scenario for which there was no evidence, the court's approach was the very opposite of the more critical approach which the particular circumstances of the case demanded.
The Court of Criminal Appeal felt compelled for this reason to set aside the conviction as unsafe.
On the second successful ground of appeal, Mr Justice Kearns said it was undeniable that the court of trial had had regard to Mr Murphy's previous convictions, although Mr Murphy had not himself given evidence to put his own "good character" in issue.
The prosecution was at pains throughout the trial not to lead evidence from the interviews which might be construed as either prejudicial to or in any way compromising the accused's presumption of innocence.
The appeal court said that nonetheless, the Special Criminal Court in its judgment had referred to Mr Murphy having been convicted of serious offences for which he had served sentences.