A Supreme Court decision yesterday has cleared the way for the trial before the non-jury Special Criminal Court of Mr Paul Ward, for the murder of journalist, Veronica Guerin.
The five-judge court dismissed an appeal by Mr Ward against a High Court decision that his case should be held in the Special Criminal Court, rather than the Central Criminal Court, which sits with a jury.
It also upheld a High Court decision refusing Mr Ward's lawyers access to confidential statements made by informants to gardai in the course of the investigation.
Mr Ward, a native of Windmill Road, Crumlin, with an address at Walkinstown Road, Dublin, has denied the murder of Ms Guerin at Naas Road, Clondalkin, in 1996. His trial is expected to proceed in October.
Mr Ward's trial was due to open before the Special Criminal Court last January but has been adjourned pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.
Giving the Supreme Court judgment, Mr Justice O'Flaherty said Mr Ward was charged at the Special Criminal Court on October 18th, 1996, with the murder of Ms Guerin on June 26th, 1996. Two people on a motorbike drew up alongside her car and a firearm was discharged by one of them.
It was the prosecution's case, added Mr Justice O'Flaherty, that while Mr Ward was not at the scene of the crime, he was complicit in the murder plot and had arranged for the killers to come back to his house to dispose of the motorbike.
The prosecution said Mr Ward's complicity was further demonstrated by an exchange of 16 mobile phone conversations on the day of the killing between Mr Ward and others with whom it was said he acted in concert in relation to the murder.
The prosecution proposed to call Mr Charles Bowden, whom it said would implicate Mr Ward in the plot. The prosecution also said it would rely on admissions made by Mr Ward.
In the Special Criminal Court, while the prosecution disclosed the existence of 40 statements made by 20 people, it claimed privilege in respect of them on the basis that this was information that had been given by, at least some, informants on the basis that it would be treated in confidence and that they would not be required to give evidence.
It was also the State's case that there was a definite risk for some of the informants if their identity was disclosed. The defence had requested disclosure of these statements.
The High Court had decided the Special Criminal Court would examine the statements and decide whether any might help the defence case, help to disparage the prosecution case or give a lead to other evidence.
On the basis of that examination, the High Court had stated the Special Criminal Court would determine which, if any, of the 40 statements concerned should be disclosed to the defence.
The Supreme Court decided it would remove any direction to the Special Criminal Court as to whether the members of that court should examine some or all of the documents in debate.