Colm Murphy was released on bail last Friday following the earlier decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal to quash his conviction in relation to the Omagh bombing. He now faces a retrial.
This is the third occasion in recent times that the Court of Criminal Appeal has taken issue with decisions of the Special Criminal Court. It overturned the conviction of Paul Ward on charges relating to the murder of Veronica Guerin and it reduced the sentence imposed on John Gilligan for drug possession (the court had acquitted him of the Guerin murder), suggesting that it was disproportionate and seemed to relate to the crime of which he was acquitted rather than to his actual conviction.
Some common themes are emerging from the judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal in these cases. The most disturbing is that evidence from certain members of the Garda Síochána cannot be relied upon. In the Colm Murphy judgment it ruled that the Special Criminal Court had erred in not taking proper account of the previous conduct of some of the gardaí involved in the case.
This judgment, overturning the only conviction in connection with the 1998 Omagh bombing, makes sobering reading for the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, and for the Garda Commissioner, Mr Conroy. It is a warning that only the highest quality of evidence, acquired in the most scrupulous manner, should be acceptable to the courts.
But the fact that the Special Criminal Court has been found to have erred on three recent occasions should also promote a debate about the continued existence and role of this court. Such a debate was promised following the Belfast Agreement, as part of a review of emergency legislation, and a committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Hederman, considered it. Its members failed to agree on a final report and some contradictory recommendations were made in the majority and minority reports. Mr Justice Hederman himself was among the signatories of the minority report which stated that the case for the continued existence of this court had not been made. This view was not shared by the majority who argued that the on-going danger of jury intimidation and the activities of dissident republicans made its continued existence necessary.
At the time Mr McDowell promised a debate and a review of the legislation. However, all that has happened is that he has announced the opening of a second special court, without any public discussion. The recent record of this court suggests that a debate over its role is now overdue.