RELATIVES of two women shot dead eight years ago have been refused permission to be represented at an inquiry into whether their killer should be released from the Central Mental Hospital.
The application to the Highs Court for the relatives to be allowed representation at next Wednesday's inquiry was taken in the name of Mr Patrick Maguire, an uncle and brother-in-law of the dead women.
Giving the judgment of the three-judge Divisional Court yesterday, Mr Justice Geoghegan, with whom Miss Justice Laffoy and Mr Justice Kelly agreed, said Mr Maguire had no right to representation however much one might sympathise with the motivation behind his application.
The court was told the relatives feared for their safety if John Gallagher (29), from Lifford, Co Donegal, is released from the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, Dublin.
Gallagher was found guilty but insane in 1989 of the killing of "his former girlfriend, Ms Anne Gillespie, and her mother, Ms Annie Gillespie, in the grounds of Sligo General Hospital the previous year.
Two months ago, the High Court heard the Central Mental Hospital director, Dr Charles Smith, had advised he could not justify Gallagher's continued de tent ion on grounds of his "imminent dangerousness" because he did not think it existed. He said Gallagher was not ill.
The inquiry under Article 40.4 (2) of the Constitution is due to begin in the High Court next Wednesday.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Geoghegan said Gallagher was seeking immediate release. The State was opposing such an order. The question of immediate release was the only issue before the court and there was no conflict of interest between Mr Maguire and the State. Accordingly, there was no need for additional representation.
The judge said Mr Maguire claimed to have evidence to support a genuine apprehension on his part that a release would pose a danger to his life, the lives of other relatives and people in his locality.
In an affidavit, Mr Maguire had stated that when the two women died, Gallagher had placed a loaded shotgun to his head and pulled the trigger. The gun did not discharge. Gallagher then made a further attempt to fire the gun to kill him, which again failed.
Before firing the gun, Gallagher said: "You did me no favours this morning." After the gun failed to discharge, he said: "I am giving you a chance to run for your life, you bastard," added the affidavit.
Mr Maguire said the trauma of the occasion still lived with him, his family and members of the Gillespie family, who lived in continual fear that Gallagher would be released.
He was first threatened by Gallagher in September, 1988, when he was in company of a Mr Duffy who had rescued Annie Gillespie from the company of Gallagher who was assaulting her. Gallagher drove to his (Maguire's) garage and made a sign of the cross on the back window of his (Gallagher's) car with his finger which he and Mr Duffy interpreted to mean he was going to kill them both.
Mr Maguire said in September, 1988, he knew Gallagher threatened Ms Anne Gillespie he would knock her down with his car and attacked a man who danced with her with a knife. He smeared blood over Anne's face.
On the same night, Gallagher broke a mirror, Annie's property, while in her house and threatened to burn down any house Anne lived in. Gallagher stated many times he would get revenge on anybody who crossed him.
Mr Maguire, in his affidavit, stated his daughter, Catriona, and cousin, Josephine, were attacked by Gallagher who attempted to run them down in a car. Anne had confided in a teacher, Ms Harrison, her fears that Gallagher was about to kill her.
In a letter to the Minister for Justice in April, 1996, Mr Brian McAuley, principal of St Columbus College, Stranorlar, recorded the fears of the school.
Mr Maguire said on September 15th, 1988, a Mr Lafferty - brother and uncle of Anne - was threatened by Gallagher when Gallagher was seeking out Anne. When Gallagher was thwarted in speaking to her, he proceeded to Lifford bridge and attempted to jump off it. He was later seen by Mr Maguire driving a Garda car.
Mr Maguire said that as a result of his fears about Gallagher, he had placed his family home on the market and had applied for a Mr Justice Geoghegan said Harrison's statement related to a conversation she had with Anne Gillespie on September 15th, 1988. Counsel for Mr Maguire had indicated the contents of the statement were included a statement or statements Garda possession before trial.
The letter from Mr McAuley was simply expressing his concern and that of other college staff at any prospect of Gallagher's release.
The affidavit also asserted that none of these matters were before the court at the trial and that less locus stand was granted "will not be put before the court".
Having referred to a Supreme Court decision, Mr Justice Geoghegan said it was solely a matter for the Executive to decide when Gallagher could be released. The Executive was concerned with Gallagher's present condition. His history was relevant only to the extent that it was helpful in assessing his present condition.
Mr Maguire had adduced no evidence that the Executive had improperly carried out its functions in relation to Mr Gallagher.
Another reason why separate representation should be refused was that, subject to one minor exception and apart from special statutory provisions in sexual offences, it had never been a feature of our jurisprudence that a victim, still less an alleged potential victim, should be given a hearing in the criminal process.
The court decided "in the exceptional circumstances" of the case, Mr Maguire's side should be awarded their application costs against the Attorney General.
The solicitor for the two victims' relatives, Mr Seamus Gunn, of McCloughan, Gunn & Co, Co Donegal, made a statement after the judgment.
He said: "The next of kin of Ms Anne Gillespie and Ms Annie Gillespie are obviously disappointed with the decision, especially in the present climate, but they feel they have been entirely vindicated in bringing the application, which the court held was one of exceptional legal importance and had not to date been determined.
"While they were disappointed they were not surprised. By being awarded their costs, the court held it was a point of national importance and they are entirely vindicated."