The murder of publican Tom Nevin in 1996 was proved to be a contract killing, the Court of Criminal Appeal was told yesterday. There wasn't the slightest evidence to show "idiotic", "silly" and "speculative" stories in the media about the killing had a bearing on the conviction of his widow, Catherine, for the murder, Mr Peter Charleton SC, for the DPP said.
Nevin's lawyers had made a number of applications during her trial to prevent permanently the trial on the basis of adverse publicity from 1996 on, Mr Charleton said. However, the publicity in this case was nothing like that in the X or Zoe Developments cases here or the cases of Fred and Rosemary West in Britain, in which cases the trials went on.
The Irish people had a constitutional right to have a trial where there was a reasonable suspicion that a person had committed "a heinous crime", he added. Juries must be trusted. The jury had deliberated for 26 hours and 36 minutes and there was nothing to indicate their deliberations were "anything but judicial".
Mr Charleton said the trial judge, Ms Justice Carroll, had conducted the trial with the greatest control, decorum and fairness. She had prohibited the jury from reading newspapers or watching TV reports concerning the trial and had directed that articles could not refer to Nevin's appearance or manner.
Nevin was entitled not to be subject to "idiotic" comments during her trial and her rights to privacy and dignity were protected.
Counsel was opposing the appeal by Nevin (51) against her conviction in April 2000, after a 42-day trial, 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 men to kill her husband in 1989 and 1990, six years before his murder. She is serving a life sentence on the murder charge and a total of seven years on the soliciting charges.
Some 20 grounds of appeal have been lodged including grounds relating to publicity, aspects of the trial judge's charge and the failure to direct separate trials on the counts of murder and soliciting.
Earlier yesterday, in elaborating on some of the grounds of appeal, Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for Nevin, said the trial judge in a phrase used in her charge to the jury suggested that it would be "an affront to common sense" for the jury not to find Nevin guilty.
He also argued the trial judge had erred in not dealing in detail with the evidence of three men who gave evidence against Nevin on the soliciting charge - Mr Gerry Heapes, Mr John Jones and Mr William McClean - and had also erred in how she dealt with Nevin's own evidence to the trial.
He said the judge had told the jury they should "work towards being satisfied" that not to find Nevin guilty would be an affront to common sense. Counsel accepted the judge went on to say there was a presumption of innocence which could only be displaced if the jury were convicted beyond reasonable doubt Nevin was guilty.
However, he contended, the jury could have taken the trial judge to mean they had to make a special endeavour to satisfy themselves of her guilt so as not to affront common sense. The judge's wording created a potential confusion, he said.
Mr MacEntee also said Nevin failed to secure a fair trial because of the trial judge's refusal to direct separate trials on charges of murdering Tom Nevin in 1996 and of soliciting three men to murder him six years earlier.
The evidence on the murder charge was prejudicial in relation to each of the soliciting counts.
It was also argued that the trial judge failed to have sufficient regard for the risk, given the fact that Tom Nevin was killed violently following the alleged solicitations, that the jury could be led to believe his violent death was in itself evidence of guilt in relation to the soliciting charges.
Mr Paul Burns, also for Nevin, argued the trial judge erred in not directing that the defence should see Special Branch files on Mr Heapes, Mr Jones and Mr McClean.
The appeal continues today.
