Catherine Nevin’s bid to take murder appeal to Supreme Court dismissed

This report is a localnews.ie summary based on public court reporting and records; sources are listed below.

Catherine Nevin’s bid to take an appeal against her murder conviction to the Supreme Court was dismissed on 7 July 2014. Presiding judge Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said the application contained “absolutely no points of any merit whatsoever”.

She was jailed for life in 2000 for murdering her husband Tom Nevin. The murder took place at their pub, Jack White’s Inn, near Brittas Bay, Co Wicklow, on 19 March 1996. She also received a concurrent seven-year sentence for soliciting William McClean, Gerry Heapes and John Jones to kill her husband in 1989 and 1990.

Catherine Nevin lost an appeal against her conviction in 2003 and an application to have it declared a miscarriage of justice in 2010.

At the close of the 2010 application, the Court of Criminal Appeal ordered disclosure of Garda “Suspect Antecedent History” forms relating to Gerry Heapes and John Jones. These had been unavailable to the defence at trial.

The report said a form concerning William McClean was brought to the defence’s attention through a newspaper article eight years after Catherine Nevin was jailed. It listed his associates as members of illegal and paramilitary organisations, including the INLA and Provisional IRA. William McClean denied at trial that he had paramilitary links.

The appeal court’s 2010 ruling found that the only conceivable cross-examination of William McClean concerned his credibility. It held that this was a collateral issue and his answers would have been binding on the cross-examiner.

Solicitor Anne Fitzgibbon argued that the ruling second-guessed possible questions, answers and the witness’s demeanour. She submitted that earlier access to the forms could have produced useful answers or investigative leads. She said Catherine Nevin continued to deny any involvement in the murder.

State counsel Tom O’Connell SC said the appeal court had examined 140 forms and concluded that none had evidential value, being based on hearsay and opinion. Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said treating the leak as establishing an entitlement to disclosure at trial or later was a fundamental misconception underlying the application.