A bid by Dublin criminal Mr Martin Foley to get damages of almost €200,000 from protected witness Mr Charles Bowden led to a disclosure yesterday that there are no continuing financial arrangements between the State and Mr Bowden.
At the hearing before the Master of the High Court, Mr Edmund Honohan SC, it was disclosed that Mr Bowden had been given economic protection equivalent to the income he had had prior to engaging in criminal activities. Master Honohan granted privilege over a document outlining financial agreements between Mr Bowden and the State. The agreements, he was told, did not encompass payment related to court actions.
Mr Foley, known as "The Viper", secured judgment for some £120,000 (now worth more than €192,000 with interest added) from the High Court in 2000 in an action for damages he took against Mr Bowden. This arose from a gun attack on Mr Foley in Dublin some years ago when he was shot in the finger and lung outside his house. He initiated proceedings for damages after Mr Bowden told the Special Criminal Court in 1999 that he had provided the weapon for the attack and had instructed an unidentified person to carry it out.
Mr Bowden, who gave evidence for the State in a number of trials arising from the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin in 1996, did not contest the action.
After Mr Foley secured judgment in the sum of £120,000 from the High Court, he took proceedings aimed at getting payment from Mr Bowden.
However, the High Court last year ruled that Mr Foley (48), of Cashel Avenue, Crumlin, Dublin, was not entitled to an order aimed at establishing the financial arrangements between the Garda and Mr Bowden in the Witness Protection Scheme. Mr Foley successfully appealed the High Court refusal to the Supreme Court, which directed that a Garda officer answer questions about what debts, if any, are owed by the State to Mr Bowden.
At the hearing yesterday, a senior Garda officer told Mr Rossa Fanning, for Mr Foley, that, under an agreement made some time ago through the protection scheme, Mr Bowden had got "the protection of his life and economic circumstances equating with his former life, unconnected with any possible criminal earnings". There was no continuing financial arrangement now between the State and Mr Bowden, the officer said.
There were agreements with Mr Bowden but, the officer said, he was claiming privilege on those. Mr Fanning said he wished to challenge the claim of privilege. The Master said he would rule that the document concerned was privileged.
Earlier, the officer said he had been aware of the proceedings between Mr Foley and Mr Bowden. The latter had been seeking legal advice but, the officer said, he had not advised him one way or another. Asked if Mr Bowden was concerned about where he would live, the officer said he was.
Asked if the judgment against Mr Bowden had formed any part of the latter's "wish list", the officer said the question of paying his legal costs or bills did not form any part of the process. As a matter of general policy, the scheme did not encompass any payment of legal fees, he added.
Lawyers for Mr Foley will now consider yesterday's evidence in deciding whether to seek further orders against Mr Bowden.