The Supreme Court has allowed Vincent Banks’s appeal against his conviction for membership of the IRA, finding that his December 2012 arrest was unlawful and that the supporting evidence did not meet the standard required to sustain the conviction.
In a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley on 10 February 2022, the court considered two issues: whether the arrest breached section 30A of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, and whether evidence from a senior garda officer was sufficiently supported despite a broad claim of privilege over the material behind his belief.
Banks had been arrested in September 2012 on suspicion of IRA membership and firearms possession after attending the funeral of Alan Ryan. He was released without charge. In December, he was arrested again, this time in an investigation into the murder of prison officer David Black in Northern Ireland. The prosecution alleged that Banks had bought a Toyota later used in the murder and charged him with membership on 18 December 2012. He had earlier been acquitted of withholding information about the murder; that trial found the evidence did not establish that he knew the car’s intended use.
The trial court ruled that the December arrest was lawful because it arose from a separate investigation and different events. The Supreme Court held that this was an error. Section 30A’s restriction applies to a later arrest “in connection with” the earlier matter, and the court said a prior arrest on suspicion of membership engages that protection when a person is again arrested on suspicion of membership. The arresting officer’s lack of awareness of the September arrest did not determine whether the later arrest was lawful. A District Court warrant was required in these circumstances.
The Supreme Court also considered the conviction on its merits. It did not rule the senior garda’s belief evidence inadmissible, but said the breadth of the privilege claim increased the need for strong independent supporting evidence. The material examined by the officer did not include the earlier arrest or the September investigation, in which an investigating officer had concluded Banks was not a member at that time. The Supreme Court said the trial court had not adequately considered the possible effect of that missing information.
The court accepted that evidence linked Banks to buying the Toyota under a false name, but said this did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was an IRA member. It also found an insufficient probative link between his lies in interview about the car and the membership charge. The judgment noted there was no trial evidence of prior IRA associations or activities consistent with membership. The appeal was allowed. The judgment does not set out any further order.