The Supreme Court has rejected Mark Nash’s appeal to stop his trial on charges of murdering Sylvia Shiels and Mary Callinan, ruling that the material before it did not establish a real risk of an unavoidable unfair trial. It stressed that it was making no findings of fact and left evidential and trial-management questions to the trial judge.
In a judgment delivered on 29 January 2015, Mr Justice Charleton said the High Court had been entitled to refuse Nash’s application for prohibition. The appeal concerned that refusal; the Supreme Court said the trial judge remained the primary guarantor of a fair trial and could assess how any issues developed when evidence was heard.
The prosecution case, as outlined in the judgment, included alleged admissions by Nash and DNA profiles which the prosecution intended to attribute to the two victims. Nash argued that delay, unavailable witnesses, missing evidence and adverse publicity would prevent a fair trial. The judgment described the DNA material as apparent evidence and cautioned that its admissibility and significance were for the trial process, not matters the appeal court could decide.
Several potential witnesses had died or were unavailable, including Dean Lyons, who had also confessed to the murders before withdrawing his admission, and Ann Mernagh, who discovered the bodies. The court said their absence had not been shown on appeal to make a fair trial impossible. It also discussed the loss of other witnesses and the defence’s proposed alternative lines of inquiry, while leaving questions about admissibility and the scope of those inquiries to the trial judge.
Nash also alleged failures of disclosure. The judgment noted that the designated trial judge had already made disclosure rulings and said the trial court would be better placed to assess relevance and fairness. On publicity, the Supreme Court concluded that the material presented did not justify stopping the trial; jury selection and any warnings would be matters for the trial judge.
The court dismissed the appeal against the refusal of prohibition. It did not decide whether the prosecution evidence was admissible or sufficient to prove guilt, whether disclosure was adequate, or whether the trial would ultimately be fair. Those matters, along with any response to difficulties emerging during proceedings, remained for the trial judge.