The Court of Criminal Appeal has certified that newly discovered facts showed a miscarriage of justice in Nora Wall’s conviction for rape and indecent assault, clearing the way for her to seek compensation under section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993.
The court granted the certificate on 16 December 2005. It did not determine any compensation claim or award compensation. Wall’s convictions and sentences had already been quashed by the court in November 1999, after the prosecution abandoned its application for a retrial.
Wall had been convicted by the Central Criminal Court in June 1999 and sentenced the following month to life imprisonment for rape and five years for indecent assault. The appeal court’s judgment said the jury convicted her of one incident, for which Patricia Phelan gave corroborative evidence, and acquitted her of another incident that depended on the complainant’s evidence alone.
In the section 9 application, the prosecution did not oppose the request and agreed that a certificate should issue. The court heard an outline of the facts from Wall’s counsel. Phelan, who was present, confirmed the outline’s accuracy and reaffirmed a statement she had given to gardaí in 2001.
In that statement, Phelan admitted that her trial evidence was false. She said she had testified that she saw Paul McCabe rape the complainant and that Wall held the complainant’s legs down, although she knew the evidence was wrong. The appeal court said Phelan’s statement and evidence had been fabricated, and that the circumstances gave rise to a compelling inference of collusion between Phelan and the complainant. It concluded that this made it unsafe to leave either woman’s evidence to a jury.
The judgment also described serious communication failures among the prosecution office, the Chief State Solicitor’s office, gardaí and counsel. The prosecution had directed that Phelan not be called and that the defence be told of that decision, but the defence was not informed. The court noted that the trial judge had warned the jury about relying on the complainant’s evidence without corroboration.
The court also cited significant non-disclosure, including the complainant’s earlier allegation of rape in England and her recent psychiatric history. It said the defence had not been notified that the complainant described retrieving memories through “flashbacks” and had no opportunity to meet that account with scientific evidence.
The court found that the prosecution, in the form presented with corroborative evidence from a witness known to be unreliable, should not have been brought. It also found a serious defect in the administration of justice caused unintentionally by state agents. It granted the certificate on the agreed facts, without ranking the various newly discovered facts by gravity.