Evidence has concluded in the hearing of an application by Mr Frank Shortt for a certificate declaring a miscarriage of justice. The application arose from his conviction for knowingly allowing his nightclub, the Point Inn, Inishowen, to be used for the sale of drugs.
Yesterday, after refusing an application by the DPP to call evidence from Mr Colm Quinn, of Swatragh, Co Derry, who has made certain allegations against Mr Shortt, the Court of Criminal Appeal adjourned the hearing to July 11th.
Mr Justice Hardiman, presiding, and sitting with Mr Justice O'Donovan and Mr Justice O'Higgins, said both sides would have to file written submissions prior to that date and the court would hear oral submissions on July 11th. The court hoped to deliver its judgment by July 31st.
Mr Shortt served a three-year prison sentence after being convicted in 1995 of knowingly allowing the sale of drugs at the Point Inn. The conviction was overturned in November 2000, with no opposition from the DPP.
Mr Shortt is now seeking a certificate declaring a miscarriage of justice. This would enable him sue the State for compensation.
During the 16-day hearing, two Co Donegal women, Ms Adrienne McGlinchey, of Port Road, Letterkenny, and Ms Sheenagh McMahon, the estranged wife of Det Garda Noel McMahon, formerly attached to Buncrana Garda station, made a number of serious allegations.
These included claims that Det McMahon told them he had perjured himself at Mr Shortt's trial and that he did so to get Supt Kevin Lennon (then an inspector) promoted. These and other allegations, including claims that both gardaí planted bomb-making material to be found by other gardaí, have been denied by both gardaí.
Yesterday, in a written decision rejecting an application by the DPP to call evidence from Mr Quinn, the court noted Mr Shortt's conviction was quashed on the basis of the non-disclosure or unavailability of evidential material and not to the demonstrated innocence of Mr Shortt.
That material was the allegations against Det McMahon relating to the years 1990 to 1996.
The court said its task, under the Criminal Procedure Act 1993, was whether newly discovered facts were tantamount to proving a miscarriage of justice. That was not confined to the question of actual innocence but extended to the administration in a given case of the justice system itself.
The court noted Mr Shortt's evidence had closed as had the DPP's evidence in rebuttal. Now, however, the DPP was seeking to call evidence from Mr Quinn related to alleged conversations he had with Mr Shortt "sometime around June 1993". Mr Quinn had alleged he visited the Point Inn around that time as he was considering buying Mr Shortt's interest in the club.
Mr Quinn alleged he was approached by a person to buy "E tablets" and told Mr Shortt about that. He alleged Mr Shortt had replied: "You've got to turn a blind eye to that if you want to make money. If we don't allow them to sell here, they'll only do it somewhere else." Mr Quinn also alleged he had warned Mr Shortt of the dangers of drugs, "but he just laughed it off".
The court noted the statement of Mr Quinn's evidence was taken at Buncrana Garda station on June 9th, 1996, some 16 months after Mr Shortt's conviction and more than four years before the Court of Criminal Appeal had quashed Mr Shortt's conviction. It also noted no attempt was made at Mr Shortt's two appeal hearings to rely on Mr Quinn's statement as a ground for declining to quash Mr Shortt's conviction.
There was nothing before the court to indicate how or why Mr Quinn came to make the statement at that time or why Mr Shortt might in 1993, a time when he was facing serious criminal charges, have spoken in the manner alleged.
The court ruled the evidence inadmissible on grounds related to general principles of the law of evidence in both civil and criminal matters.
It also indicated that, although new and additional evidence was admissible on an application for a certificate of miscarriage of justice, that evidence must be limited to such as would be admissible at a criminal trial.
The first condition of admissibility was that the evidence must be relevant, it said. Evidence of events similar to the one under inquiry on account of their general similarity was not admissible.
A portion of Mr Quinn's proposed evidence suggesting Mr Shortt committed an offence on other occasions or was a bad character was also open to objection under the Criminal Justice Evidence Act.
The court believed Mr Quinn's evidence was objectionable as it raised issues collateral to the specific issue of whether Mr Shortt's conviction was a miscarriage of justice.
