Article: Omagh Bomb Conviction found to be "Unsafe"

Villain

Omagh conviction: Murphy retrial ordered
21/01/2005 - 10:47:59

Colm Murphy, the only man jailed in connection with the Omagh bombing, today won his appeal against his conviction.

The Court of Criminal Appeal in Dublin ruled that the 52-year-old, from Ravensdale, Co Louth, should be granted a retrial on two grounds.

Colm Murphy was jailed in 2002 at the Special Criminal Court for conspiring to cause the Real IRA explosion which killed 29 people, including a mother pregnant with unborn twins in August 1998.

Security was tight in the packed courtroom, with Murphy flanked by gardaí on all sides, and every person entering was scanned.

The Murphy family looked on as the three judges delivered their verdict.

Murphy, who was dressed in a crumpled zip-up jacket and checked shirt, sat quietly as the three judges ordered a retrial.

Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, presiding, said the court had decided that Murphy's conviction was unsafe in respect of two grounds.

He said the first ground was the Special Criminal Court approach to the alteration of garda interview notes and the evidence given in this respect by two gardaí.

He said the second ground was the Special Criminal Court invasion of Murphy’s presumption of innocence by having regard to his previous convictions. He said that all other grounds submitted by Murphy’s lawyers had been rejected.

Murphy, who wore a checked shirt, creased zip-up jacket and cream slacks, displayed no obvious emotion when the judgment was announced.

Senior counsel Michael O’Higgins, representing Murphy applied for bail on his behalf.

Senior Counsel Tom O’Connell, representing the state, said he had no objection.

Mr Justice Kearns imposed a requirement of a €50,000 cash deposit and two independent sureties of €35,000.

He also ordered that Murphy surrender his passport, report daily to Dundalk garda station and to provide the address at which he will be residing.

Mr O’Higgins said Murphy’s personal circumstances had altered very radically since he was convicted in 2002.

“He was a builder then … literally, in 24 hours his business ground to a halt. He was financially ruined by it,” he said.

Mr O’Higgins said the state had opposed the granting of legal aid to Murphy during the 2002 trial and that as a result he would be considering bringing an application for costs against the state.

Mr Justice Kearns said he would have the opportunity to do so when the court sat again at 10.15am next Friday.

After the hearing Murphy's sister Angela Reilly and another young woman went over to the defendant in the courtroom.

Ms Reilly spent several minutes talking to him while the other woman knelt down in front of him.

Murphy was then led away in handcuffs by six gardaí to await an army patrol to bring him back to prison. He was remanded in custody until he met the bail requirements.

Speaking afterwards, Ms Reilly said: “We are relieved. It’s been a terrible time for us all. He is doing okay, better than three years ago when justice wasn’t served.”

On whether the family would be able to meet bail, she said: “We hope so.”

His solicitor, Michael Farrell, said: “We have no comment to make whatsoever. The judgment speaks for itself.”

Well the justice system in this country has once again fouled up, the actions of two Gardai in this case along with the court have meant the convinction is unsafe. I could never understand how they couldn't establish who carried out this terrible act. Sad day for the Irish justice system.

billy the squid

It cant be nice right now for the families who up until now thought that they would have had closure only to be knocked back to square one again.

If the two guards in question are found guilty of perjury in this then they should have the book thrown at them and given a hefty sentence.

“He was a builder then … literally, in 24 hours his business ground to a halt. He was financially ruined by it,” he said.

Mr Justice Kearns imposed a requirement of a €50,000 cash deposit and two independent sureties of €35,000.

It will be interesting to see if that is found then...

As regards the justice system fowling up-well I think all cases should be watertight before going to court , otherwise at the next level judgements may be overturned. Thats actually a safeguard against mis-carriages of justice really.
It's a pity it can be exploited by the less than innocent but if a court ruling couldn't be appealed, there would be noises...

bonkey

billy the squid wrote:

It cant be nice right now for the families who up until now thought that they would have had closure only to be knocked back to square one again.

Nope...but an unsafe conviction is an unsafe conviction. It mightn't be nice, but you can't keep people locked up just because you're fairly sure it was them.

jc

billy the squid

bonkey wrote:

Nope...but an unsafe conviction is an unsafe conviction. It mightn't be nice, but you can't keep people locked up just because you're fairly sure it was them.

jc

i agree which is why i suggested that they throw the book at the two guards if they are found guilty of pergery.

Cork

It is sad that the people who both planned and executed the Omagh bombing are still out there.

The victims really need to be supported by both governments in taking civil cases aganist such people.

arcadegame2004

This doesn't make Colm Murphy innocent. It just means a retrial must happen.

I hear one of the grounds for the conviction being found unsafe is that Murphy's previous convictions were mentioned.

I personally feel that courts and juries should be allowed to take into account previous convictions.

monument

arcadegame2004 wrote:

This doesn't make Colm Murphy innocent. It just means a retrial must happen.

I hear one of the grounds for the conviction being found unsafe is that Murphy's previous convictions were mentioned.

I personally feel that courts and juries should be allowed to take into account previous convictions.

"juries" - is he being tried with one next time, or is he going back to the only place where Ireland's current “state of emergence” really exists?

MrPudding

arcadegame2004 wrote:

This doesn't make Colm Murphy innocent. It just means a retrial must happen.

Not sure about this. If the conviction is unsafe is that not the same as if he was found not guilty in the first place? In the eyes of the law I mean.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I hear one of the grounds for the conviction being found unsafe is that Murphy's previous convictions were mentioned.

I personally feel that courts and juries should be allowed to take into account previous convictions.

I am sad to say I am a believer in a second chance and that sometime people do change and that you may be able to rehabilitate criminals. For this reason I have to disagree with this point. A person should be tried for the crime he is accused of on the strength of evidence gathered in relation to that crime. And independently of any crime he has committed in the past.



MrP

monument

I personally feel that courts and juries should be allowed to take into account previous convictions.

Previous convictions are not sound proof that someone has done something, neither is heavily relying on someone’s involvement with a group, neither is in any way relying on someone’s lack of willingness to talk – all of which the Special Criminal Court have ignored in the past.

arcadegame2004

monument wrote:

I personally feel that courts and juries should be allowed to take into account previous convictions.

Previous convictions are not sound proof that someone has done something, neither is heavily relying on someone’s involvement with a group, neither is in any way relying on someone’s lack of willingness to talk – all of which the Special Criminal Court have ignored in the past.

Previous convictions are not proof that the suspect committed the crime on this occasion. Even so, they should be allowed as evidence because they reflect on the character of the accused. If the accused has committed similar crimes in the past, then it increases the likelihood that the suspect is guilty. That should be disclosed in court.

Regarding "rehabilitation", I agree it should have a place in our prisons system with respect to helping ensure the convicts don't repeat offend, but it doesn't guarantee they won't. My point stands.

bonkey

billy the squid wrote:

i agree which is why i suggested that they throw the book at the two guards if they are found guilty of pergery.

Dare I suggest that finding out what led to a failing in the system and then seeking to address that - rather than looking for someone to vent at - may be a more constructive approach?

jc

nlgbbbblth

arcadegame2004 wrote:

This doesn't make Colm Murphy innocent. It just means a retrial must happen.

I hear one of the grounds for the conviction being found unsafe is that Murphy's previous convictions were mentioned.

I personally feel that courts and juries should be allowed to take into account previous convictions.

what were these previous convictions?

was he known to have strong republican views?

Genuine queries - the papers are not big on detail.

billy the squid

bonkey wrote:

Dare I suggest that finding out what led to a failing in the system and then seeking to address that - rather than looking for someone to vent at - may be a more constructive approach?

jc

its simple really, two gardai were discovered to have tinkered with statements which were used as evidence in the original case. the fact that they did this caused the original case to be unsafe, resulting in the situation the case is in now and causing unecessary anguish for the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing. That is why i say throw the book at these gardai if they are found guilty.

FTA69

nlgbbbblth wrote:

what were these previous convictions?

I'm not sure but they were definitely relating to the conflict.

was he known to have strong republican views?

See above.

I fail to see how that should have relevance in trial though.

monument

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Previous convictions are not proof that the suspect committed the crime on this occasion. Even so, they should be allowed as evidence because they reflect on the character of the accused. If the accused has committed similar crimes in the past, then it increases the likelihood that the suspect is guilty. That should be disclosed in court.

Like in the way, a man from a deprived area is more to break into your house because he broke into some there house 20 years ago? Or even if ’20 years’ was replaced with two weeks, why does that make the likelihood of that person being guilty when there’s plenty of more people with the same disposition?

So if you actual have proper proof, what is the point? Isn’t the likelihood of someone being wrongfully when there is a lack of proper proof and a person’s record is presented in court not too strong? Or do we lock people up because we know in our harts that someone is guilty?

bonkey wrote:

Dare I suggest that finding out what led to a failing in the system and then seeking to address that - rather than looking for someone to vent at - may be a more constructive approach?

jc

No, you dare not; there is no problem with our police force, just the, err… odd, err *cough*, isolated incident. There is no general mindset that they are above the law, and this isn’t a mindset seen any where in public life in Ireland. Now, there is nothing to see here, move along before you all are arrested.

bonkey

billy the squid wrote:

its simple really, two gardai were discovered to have tinkered with statements which were used as evidence in the original case. the fact that they did this caused the original case to be unsafe, resulting in the situation the case is in now and causing unecessary anguish for the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing. That is why i say throw the book at these gardai if they are found guilty.

Sure, but what will stop other gardai from modifying other statements in other cases? The fear of getting caught? Hardly...it didn't stop these lads.

There is a failing in the system where there was no process to easily detect the "tinkering" of statements. That is what needs to be addressed - traceability and verifiability.

Sure...if these cops have broken the law, then prosecute them as per the law.....but more importantly, fix the damned problem.

jc

billy the squid

bonkey wrote:

Sure, but what will stop other gardai from modifying other statements in other cases? The fear of getting caught? Hardly...it didn't stop these lads.

indeed, I suppose there is always the option of videotaping statements and having them played in court. this idea was bandied about during the Liam Keane murder trial after it collapsed, so there might be an apetite in government to do this after the emparrasement that case caused.

Sure...if these cops have broken the law, then prosecute them as per the law.....but more importantly, fix the damned problem.
jc

I agree 110 percent with you.

that does not change the fact that these men should face severe reprecussions to reflect the seriousness of what they are alledged to have done if they are convicted.