THE case against a man accused of robbing three post offices in Co Louth last June was dismissed yesterday after the court heard a garda had allegedly not told the truth in his evidence.
A Garda forensic expert yesterday told Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court that a comma followed by the words "made after caution" had been written in a different ink to that used in the rest of a memorandum taken by Sgt Tom Duffy of Dromad Garda station.
The memorandum was of an interview on June 22nd this year with the defendant, Mr Peter McNeela (23), of Newtown Road Camlough, Co Down, in which the court heard he had admitted involvement in the robbery at Carlingford post office.
He was one of four men from Northern Ireland charged with robbing post offices in Carlingford, Ravensdale and Hackballscross between June 12th and 14th. The other defendants pleaded guilty and have been remanded in custody for sentencing next Friday at Trim Circuit Court.
Det Sgt John Lynch of the Garda Technical Bureau, giving evidence for the State, told the court that on Wednesday evening last he had tested the hand written memorandum of the interview with Mr McNeela with a video spectral compositor. It found evidence that a comma and the words "made after caution" were added and written with a different pen to the one used in the rest of the memo.
He said the test was "conclusive" but there was no evidence as to when the entry had been added. Cross examined by Mr Michael O Higgins, defending the witness said he was satisfied the full stop was changed to a comma.
In the absence of the jury, Mr O'Higgins made an application to Judge Patrick Smith that the case he withdrawn. He said very serious questions had been raised about what exactly had happened in the Garda station during the 13 hours between 5.30 a.m. and 6:40 p.m. He said Sgt Duffy was given several opportunities to explain what had happened, both by him and by the judge, who had asked him was the comma ever a full stop. The sergeant had replied "No".
Mr O'Higgins said there was only one inference to be drawn and that was that the sergeant did not tell the truth. He said the evidence tainted the memo of the interview and everything that followed. The evidence was utterly damning of the prosecution case and it was not safe to be allowed go to the jury, he told Judge Smith.
It was agreed by prosecution and defence that the entire case depended on the statements before the court. Mr Turlough O'Donnell, for the State, agreed there was no evidence other than the statements.
However, he said the case concerned not merely the evidence of Sgt Duffy but the evidence of other statements. He added there were statements in relation to the other defendants which could be described as incriminating.
Judge Smith said it was a very disturbing matter that had been revealed in the court. He said Sgt Duffy was quite emphatic the words were inserted with the same pen and at the same time as the statement was made. That was not so, the words and content had to be inserted at a different time because a different pen was used, he said.
The judge said it would be quite unsafe to rely on the memorandum or a statement made by Mr McNeela witnessed by the sergeant That left one memorandum in which it appeared custody regulations were not fully complied with, he added.
Judge Smith told the jury the memo was not something that could be relied on as being worthy of credit and directed them to find the defendant not guilty.