Happily married people "don't go around murdering each other", and evidence about the state of the marriage between Catherine and Tom Nevin, including their sleeping in separate beds, was relevant and admissible at her trial for his murder, the Court of Criminal Appeal was told yesterday.
Mr Peter Charleton SC, for the DPP, also argued that the correct decision was made in refusing to direct separate trials for Ms Nevin on charges of murdering her husband in 1996 and of soliciting three men to murder him six years earlier.
He rejected claims by Ms Nevin's lawyers that the failure of the trial judge, Ms Justice Carroll, to direct separate trials on the murder and soliciting charges had deprived Ms Nevin of a fair trial.
Evidence on the soliciting charges was admissible in relation to the murder charge, he said. And while evidence on the murder charge was not admissible in relation to the soliciting charges, the counts were tried together separately in a single trial because it was "just and convenient".
The rules of evidence must not be allowed to offend common sense, counsel said. If the counts were not dealt with in a single trial, and there was a conviction on any count, it would be subsequently argued there could never be a fair trial on the other counts, he argued. Even if a murder trial was held on its own, the prosecution would have called the three men who gave evidence against Ms Nevin on the soliciting counts and exactly the same situation would have prevailed.
The trial judge, in her charge to the jury, had "compartmentalised" the four counts on the indictment and directed the jury to consider all four separately. The jury was told that unless they reached a verdict of guilty on any of the solicitation charges, they were not to proceed to considering the murder charge. This was effectively four separate trials within a trial.
Mr Charleton was opposing the appeal by Ms Nevin (51), against her conviction in April 2000 of the murder of her husband, Tom, at their pub, Jack White's Inn, Brittas Bay, on March 19th, 1996. She is also appealing her conviction on three counts of soliciting three different men to kill her husband in 1989 and 1990, six years before his murder. She is serving life on the murder charge and seven years on the soliciting charges.
Some 20 grounds of appeal have been lodged, including grounds relating to failure to disclose certain documents, including Garda Special Branch files on the three men - Mr Gerry Heapes, Mr John Jones and Mr William McClean - who gave evidence to the trial of being solicited by Ms Nevin, some years before his murder, to kill Mr Nevin.
Mr Charleton argued the prosecution had fulfilled its disclosure obligations and that the Special Branch files on the men were not relevant. There had already been a violent attack on the men's credibility during the trial. A Revenue Commissioners' list of pubs to be investigated regarding money-laundering, which had included Jack White's Inn, was also not admissible, he said. The pub's name had been later removed from that list and gardaí had said the pub was "clear".
Mr Charleton argued the trial judge's charge on how the jury should treat circumstantial evidence was "unimpeachable".
Evidence from Nevin's bar staff about the relationship between the Nevins, as well as other evidence about the alarm system at the bar and remarks by Ms Nevin prior to the murder that no-one would be staying at the bar on the night of the killing, was relevant. One has to look to motive and why would anyone want to kill Tom Nevin, counsel said. If he was the nicest man on Earth, and the evidence appeared to indicate so, why would anyone want to kill him? Mr Charleton argued Ms Nevin had a motive. She would get "insurance, the pub, the lot".
Replying, Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for Ms Nevin, said the failure to direct separate trials had created a very substantial risk that the jury, when considering the soliciting charges, had taken into account evidence which was not appropriate to those charges. He said the trial judge had failed to explain to the jury what evidence was admissible on each of the four counts.
The appeal is expected to conclude today.
