The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Eamon Matthews leave to appeal his conviction for membership of the IRA, rejecting all grounds advanced against it. The ruling, delivered by Macken J. on 14 July 2006, concerned the conviction only; the application for leave to appeal his sentence was left to be dealt with later if necessary.
Matthews was convicted by the Special Criminal Court on 7 December 2004 of membership of an unlawful organisation on 13 June 2003. He received a sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment. The appeal court did not reconsider the sentence in this judgment.
The prosecution case included a Chief Superintendent’s belief that Matthews was a member, his associations before June 2003, his movements around two County Louth farms and other premises on 12 and 13 June, and inferences drawn from his answers and failures to answer questions in Garda interviews. Searches at the Thornfield farm uncovered a bomb-making operation, including explosives and a cement mixer hired by Matthews and another man the previous day. Two men were found making explosives and later pleaded guilty to possessing an explosive substance. The appeal judgment recounts these as evidence and findings from the trial; the Court of Criminal Appeal was deciding whether grounds for leave to appeal had been made out.
Matthews argued that interview evidence had been wrongly admitted and used to draw inferences, that evidence from an earlier trial in which he was acquitted of explosives charges should not have been used, and that the Chief Superintendent’s belief evidence could not be fairly tested because its sources were withheld. He also challenged the way the trial court assessed corroborating evidence and its treatment of a co-accused.
The appeal court found no material error in the trial court’s assessment of the interviews or its use of permitted inferences. It held that the earlier acquittal on different charges did not prevent the same factual evidence being considered in the later membership trial. On the restricted cross-examination of the Chief Superintendent, the court relied on Supreme Court authority and concluded that the restriction did not, in the circumstances, make the trial unfair. It also held that the trial court could assess proven evidence cumulatively and was entitled to find the belief evidence sufficiently supported.
The Court refused leave to appeal on every ground put forward. It made no decision in this judgment on the application concerning sentence.