The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin McHale’s appeal against his conviction for membership of the IRA, an unlawful organisation. The conviction was entered by the Special Criminal Court in February 2017 for an offence on 2 November 2013.
The appeal court said the trial court was entitled to find that Detective Garda Emmet Ryan had objectively reasonable grounds to arrest McHale under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act 1939. It cited the circumstances in which McHale was found in Monaghan, his answers to the garda, the van’s ownership, its contents and Garda records referring to associations with an IRA member. The court said Ryan’s suspicions grew as he gathered information and rejected the challenge to the arrest.
The van had been driven from Cork to Monaghan. Gardaí found bags of fertiliser in it; forensic evidence established that the substance could be used to produce explosives. Gloves were later found in the passenger foot-well. Testing found McHale’s DNA on them and a substance on their exterior matching the fertiliser. The appeal court said there was ample evidence for the trial court’s finding that McHale possessed the substance, including that the bags were in plain sight and he had driven the van.
The court also upheld the trial court’s reliance on evidence from Assistant Commissioner Finn, who said he believed McHale was an IRA member on the relevant date. The trial court had accepted that evidence despite a challenge concerning privilege over the officer’s sources. The appeal court said the belief evidence was one part of the evidence considered in reaching the verdict.
In five interviews, questioning took place under section 2 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, which permits inferences from failures to answer material questions. The trial court found that McHale’s answers about who had lent him the van and whether the gloves were his were false or misleading. The appeal court said those topics were material, and found no error in the trial court’s focus on the substance of the answers. It also upheld the trial court’s assessment that McHale’s explanations in his first two interviews lacked credibility.
The court said the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to prosecute McHale’s passenger, Mr Roche, and the abandonment of a separate possession charge did not undermine the membership conviction. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the conviction in place.