The Court of Appeal has dismissed Damien Metcalfe’s appeal against his conviction for membership of an unlawful organisation, concluding that none of his grounds established a reason to overturn the conviction or raised doubt about its safety or the fairness of the trial.
Metcalfe was convicted by the Special Criminal Court on 17 May 2019 and sentenced ten days later to two and a half years in prison, backdated to 6 May 2019. His appeal concerned the conviction. The Director of Public Prosecutions had initially sought a review of the sentence for undue leniency, but withdrew that application at the appeal hearing. Metcalfe also abandoned his challenges to the surveillance authorisation and the sentence.
The prosecution case was that IRA business, described as a “Court of Inquiry” into disrupted operations and arrests, took place at 10 Riverwood Park, Castleknock, on 7 and 8 August 2015. The State said Metcalfe attended as an IRA member and was interviewed there. Garda surveillance monitored people and vehicles at the address, and audio recordings formed a central part of the case.
A key appeal issue was evidence from Detective Chief Superintendent Anthony Howard that he believed Metcalfe was a member of an unlawful organisation. The defence argued that contradictions in Howard’s evidence about the sources underlying his belief, combined with claims of privilege that restricted questioning, meant the evidence should be disregarded. The appeal court accepted that cross-examination had weakened the belief evidence, but held that the trial court was entitled to consider it alongside the other evidence. It said the supporting evidence was overwhelming and dismissed those grounds.
The court also rejected the challenge to the trial court’s identification of Metcalfe as a speaker on the recordings. The trial court had considered the audio alongside surveillance observations, timings, photographs and statements Metcalfe made in later Garda interviews. The appeal court said the trial court’s conclusions were justified.
Metcalfe argued that his conduct could have amounted to assisting the IRA rather than membership. The appeal court held that evidence could support the membership charge even if it was also potentially consistent with assisting, and found no error in the trial court’s approach. It also rejected his complaint that interviewers had not explained the word “misleading” before questions under section 2 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. The trial court had considered outright refusals to answer, but not answers that were misleading or might reasonably be viewed as misleading.
Finally, the appeal court upheld the refusal to halt the case at the close of the prosecution evidence, finding that the trial court had properly considered the arguments and applied the required threshold. The conviction stands. The appeal court made no new sentence order.