The Court of Appeal has dismissed five appeals against convictions arising from an Garda investigation into an alleged IRA inquiry held at a vacant rental property in Castleknock in August 2015.
The appellants were Kevin Hannaway, Eva Shannon, Sean Hannaway, David Nooney and Edward O’Brien. The Special Criminal Court convicted Hannaway and Shannon of providing assistance to an unlawful organisation, and convicted the other three of membership. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 6 February 2020, concerned conviction appeals only. It did not decide the sentence appeals brought by Hannaway, Shannon and Sean Hannaway, or the Director of Public Prosecutions’ sentence reviews concerning Nooney and O’Brien.
The prosecution case centred on audio recordings made under a surveillance authorisation at No. 10 Riverwood Park on 7 and 8 August 2015. The prosecution said the recordings captured an internal IRA inquiry into a failed operation, including interviews with three men. The appellants challenged the recordings’ admissibility and authenticity, the limits placed on questioning about surveillance equipment and deployment, and the use of a transcript to assist the trial court.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Special Criminal Court’s rulings. It accepted that the recording device itself had not been disclosed under a state-security privilege claim and that this limited cross-examination, but found the defence had still been able to question relevant witnesses and that the restriction did not create a real risk of an unfair trial. It also held that unexplained differences in file names could affect the weight given to the recording, but did not require its exclusion. The transcript had been used as an aid while judges listened to the recording, not as a substitute for the audio evidence.
The trial court had found that surveillance material was stored and accessed without the ministerial authorisation required by section 10(1) of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009. The appeal court agreed that the provision had been breached, but held that the breach concerned handling and processing after the audio had been lawfully gathered. It therefore did not require exclusion of the recording or its copy.
The appeal court also rejected challenges to the statutory belief evidence given by a senior Garda officer, the legality of the arrests, the surveillance authorisation and the prosecution’s proposed voice identifications. It found no error in the trial court’s decision that evidence from the recorded inquiry could support the membership convictions, even though similar conduct had supported assistance convictions for two co-accused.
The court concluded that the trials were satisfactory and the verdicts safe. It dismissed all five appeals against conviction.