The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Joseph Cassidy’s appeal against his conviction for membership of an unlawful organisation, leaving in place the Special Criminal Court’s 2019 finding that he was a member of the IRA on 21 September 2016.
Cassidy was convicted on 21 March 2019 of a single count under section 21 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. His appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which delivered judgment on 1 May 2020. The court rejected the grounds pursued in argument and dismissed the appeal.
At trial, the prosecution relied principally on evidence from Chief Superintendent Mangan that he believed Cassidy was an IRA member on the relevant date. Mangan said his belief was based on information predating Cassidy’s arrest. He had also granted an extension of Cassidy’s detention during the investigation. The Special Criminal Court accepted his assurance that the arrest and detention did not contribute to his belief. It upheld his claim of privilege over the underlying information, citing state security, protection of life and property, and Garda operations.
Cassidy argued that this created a risk of double counting, objective bias and unfairness because the privilege claim restricted cross-examination. The Court of Appeal said the trial court had expressly excluded material from before 21 September 2016 when deciding what independently supported Mangan’s belief. It found that earlier material had been considered only to assess whether interview questions were relevant to the investigation, and held that no double counting arose. It also found no legal rule preventing the senior officer from taking part in another aspect of the investigation, and said the trial court had properly accounted for the limits on cross-examination when assessing the evidence’s weight.
The trial court’s supporting evidence included a booster tube found in a shed Cassidy could access, USB devices found in his bedroom containing material about extracting ammonium nitrate from fertiliser, and two mobile phones. It also drew adverse inferences from answers it found false and misleading under ordinary caution and under section 2 of the 1998 Act. The Court of Appeal described the circumstantial evidence as compelling. It noted that the Special Criminal Court did not give positive significance to items said to suggest an interest in republican matters, or to association evidence concerning attendance at events.
Three grounds concerning the admissibility of the booster tube, USB devices and association evidence were not pursued on appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal; it did not conduct a new trial.