The Court of Criminal Appeal has reserved judgment on the appeal by Catherine Nevin against her conviction for the murder of her husband at their pub, Jack White's Inn, Co Wicklow.
The four-day hearing before the three-judge court of Mr Justice Geoghegan, presiding, Mr Justice Quirke and Mr Justice Peart concluded yesterday afternoon. Mr Justice Geoghegan said the court would give its decision as soon as reasonably possible.
The DPP has opposed the appeal by Ms Nevin (51) against her conviction in April 2000, after a 42-day trial, of the murder of her husband on March 19th, 1996. Mr Tom Nevin was shot dead.
She has also appealed her conviction on three counts of soliciting three different men to kill her husband in 1989 and 1990. She is serving a life sentence on the murder charge and seven years on the soliciting charges.
Some 20 grounds of appeal were lodged, including grounds relating to publicity and the trial judge's refusal to direct separate trials on the counts of murder and soliciting.
In closing submissions yesterday, Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for Ms Nevin, said the trial judge had run the trial on the basis that, within the trial, the jury must separately try each of the three counts of soliciting and the murder count. The jury members were told they could proceed to consider the murder count only if they found Ms Nevin guilty on at least one of the soliciting charges.
They were told they could try each soliciting count only on the basis of the evidence admissible on that count, Mr MacEntee said. However, he submitted, the trial judge failed to define what evidence was admissible.
Before hearing evidence from the three men who alleged Ms Nevin had solicited them, the jury was exposed to evidence regarding the murder charge, including prejudicial evidence such as that relating to an alleged affair between Ms Nevin and a Garda inspector, counsel said.
Addressing the prosecution's argument that it was "just and convenient" not to direct separate trials, Mr MacEntee said convenience could not be a consideration for having a trial not in accordance with law. Convenience could only be considered where all things were equal.
Mr Justice Quirke intervened, saying he begged to differ and that convenience had to be taken into account when considering whether to sever an indictment. Although convenience was infinitely inferior in relation to the right to a fair trial, it could not be ignored.
Mr MacEntee said a trial must be free from inadmissible evidence and prejudicial evidence. The way Ms Nevin's trial was run was "not just". There was a "total failure" by the trial judge to assist the jury in relation to what evidence was appropriate to the soliciting charges. "The jury clearly needed assistance and they didn't get it." Counsel also argued that evidence from Mr Nevin's family relating to Ms Nevin's claim that he was involved with the IRA was inadmissible.
Opinion evidence from staff of Jack White's Inn regarding the state of the Nevins' relationship was also inadmissible, as was evidence from a Garda inspector about the state of Ms Nevin's room in the aftermath of the murder. It was not for the witness to draw inferences for the jury about that matter.
Mr MacEntee said the defence should have been given a Revenue Commissioners' list of pubs with suspected paramilitary links, which included Jack White's Inn.
