The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that a Dublin man did not get an unfair trial when he was convicted based on belief evidence of a Garda Chief Superintendent before the Special Criminal Court.
This decision marks the final legal challenge by Kenneth Donohoe who was sentenced to four years in prison for membership of a terror group by the Special Criminal Court (SCC). Having attempted a number of domestic appeals, Donohoe attempted to have his conviction overturned by the Court on the basis that the sworn testimony of Garda Chief Superintendent Philip Kelly infringed his right to a fair trial. Before the SCC, Superintendent Kelly told the non-jury trial he believed that Donohue was an IRA member based on confidential intelligence from police and civilian sources.
Click here to read the factual background to the case in the Irish Times.
Superintendent Kelly’s evidence was heard under the Offences Against the State Act, whereby the Special Criminal Court is entitled to convict on the belief evidence of a Chief Superintendent. For many years the practice has been that the court will only convict if there is other corroborating evidence. The admission of Garda Superintendent belief evidence has become an integral part of trials involving suspected terrorists and organised crime gang members, where senior Gardaí do not disclose the identity of some sources for fear it would put someone’s life or state security at risk. Indeed In handing down its decision the court said: “The applicant did not challenge, either before the domestic courts or this Court, the Chief Superintendent’s view that disclosure of his sources would endanger persons and state security.”
Finding the admission of belief evidence to be compelling and substantial in cases dealing with membership of a terrorist organisation the Court returned to consider whether the proceedings in the SCC were in their entirety fair. The Court ultimately found that “the weight of evidence other than the belief evidence, combined with the counterbalancing safeguards and factors, must be considered sufficient to conclude that the grant of privilege as regards the sources of the Chief Superintendent’s belief did not render the applicant’s trial unfair.”
Click here to read excerpts from the court transcripts in the Irish Independent.