The Special Criminal Court has ruled that lawyers defending a Dublin man accused of the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin should have restricted access to confidential statements which the State tried to prevent being disclosed.
Mr Peter Charleton SC, for the State, said he would have to seek instructions from the Director of Public Prosecutions following yesterday's "far-reaching" judgment. The court agreed to adjourn the trial until today to allow for further consultations.
The prosecution had sought to prevent disclosure of 40 statements which had been made to gardai by 20 people in the course of the murder investigation.
The court gave its ruling on the second day of the trial of the first man to be charged with Ms Guerin's murder.
Mr Paul Ward (33), from Windmill Park, Crumlin, with an address at Walkinstown Road, Dublin, has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Ms Guerin at the Naas Road, Clondalkin, Co Dublin on June 26th, 1996.
The court has been told that Ms Guerin was shot six times by the pillion passenger on a motorbike, who emptied the contents of a .357 Magnum revolver into her body as she sat in her car at traffic lights.
The court was also told that Mr Ward, nicknamed "Hippo", disposed of the murder weapon, which has never been recovered, and also of the motorbike.
Mr Charleton said that while Mr Ward was not one of the actual killers he acted as part of a "common design" to kill or seriously injure the journalist.
He said that Mr Ward was part of a criminal gang involved in the importation and distribution of cannabis, cocaine and firearms, and had taken part in discussions about Veronica Guerin.
Mr Charleton said the court would hear evidence from Mr Charles Bowden, who is currently in the Witness Protection Programme, that Mr Ward had "dumped" the murder weapon somewhere after the killing.
Mr Justice Barr, presiding, said that the killing of Ms Guerin, whom he described as "a leading investigative journalist in the area of serious crime" on June 26th, 1996 gave rise to "one of the largest police investigations in the history of the State.
"It involved not only the shooting of Ms Guerin but also a wide range of other major crimes, including the organisation and control of gangs responsible for the importation and distribution of illicit drugs in Ireland."
The judge said that the officer in charge of the investigation, Assistant Commissioner Tony Hickey, was "a man well known to be of high repute, integrity and experience as a criminal investigator."
Gardai had taken about 3,500 statements from 1,350 people during the investigation, and the prosecution contended that the vast majority had no bearing whatsoever on the alleged offence in the trial or on any defence which Mr Ward might wish to adduce.
Mr Justice Barr said that all the statements had been made available for inspection by the accused's lawyers, except for about 40 statements made by 20 individuals, which presented a problem.
He said that Mr Charleton had submitted that it would be "contrary to public policy" and might also endanger the safety and property, and even the lives, of the interviewees if their statements were made available to the defence and their client.
"The latter might voluntarily, or through coercion, reveal the contents thereof to other interested parties, including those against whom serious allegations of criminal activity are made by the informants."
Mr Charleton had told the court that the statements fell into three categories - the first containing information which is relevant to the issues raised in the trial but which is prejudicial to the accused.
Such information had been given to the gardai in confidence, and the prosecution was unable to offer that evidence at the trial and did not intend to do so. It was also submitted that these statements appeared to offer no advantage to Mr Ward's defence.
The prosecution had also contended that disclosure of the statements would be contrary to public policy by undermining the receipt of information in confidence from members of the public.
The second category of statements related to information about the alleged involvement of the accused and other named persons in criminal activity, notably major drugs and firearms crimes, but unconnected with Ms Guerin's murder.
These statements might be relevant to other trials, but privilege was claimed on the grounds that they were irrelevant to the offence before the court and that further criminal prosecutions could be prejudiced by the publication of the information.
The third category of statements contained background information "even further removed from the murder of Ms Guerin and it is stated have no possible bearing on it." The information included details of the connection of criminal gangs with each other.
Assistant Commissioner Hickey had given evidence of the practical difficulties in providing effective protection for the 20 informants, and their families and associates.
"It is also evident to the court that there is an important distinction between informants, such as Mr Bowden, who have obtained immunity from prosecution for major crimes in return for their co-operation, and others who require no such immunity for their assistance. It may well be that such people have no wish or any intention to pay the price of being banished, perhaps for life, from their own city and country.
"They ought not to be put in that position unless there is a real risk of injustice to the accused in the making of his defence herein," he added.
Mr Justice Barr said that the court had considered the legal authorities and all of the facts regarding the claim of privilege made by the prosecution in relation to the 40 statements at issue.
"It accepts the evidence of Assistant Commissioner Hickey that if the statements are furnished to the accused, the informants, their families and associates, might thereby be at risk of serious harm, even death," he said.
He continued: "If the accused is willing to waive his right of personal inspection and of being informed of the contents of the documents, the court will direct production of them to the accused's solicitor to be seen only by him and the accused's counsel, and also on terms that no information contained therein will be divulged by them to any other person."
The judge said the court would consider the remaining statements itself and would keep the privilege of the documents unless the court was satisfied that the content could be of assistance to the accused.
For security reasons the court directed that the documents should be examined in the court building and should be handed over to the court registrar each evening.