The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Joseph Fee leave to appeal his conviction for two explosives offences arising from a Garda operation in County Louth in June 2003.
In a judgment delivered on 13 July 2006, Macken J said the court rejected the application on all grounds. The decision concerned leave to appeal the conviction; it did not decide Fee’s separate appeal against the severity of his sentence or the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application alleging that the sentences were unduly lenient. Those matters had been deferred because Fee was appealing his conviction and could be dealt with later if appropriate.
Fee had been found guilty by the Special Criminal Court of possessing explosive substances contrary to sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, as amended. He received concurrent sentences of 10 years for the section 3 offence and seven years for the section 4 offence, imposed on 8 December 2004.
The prosecution case at trial relied on circumstantial evidence linked to a two-day surveillance operation on 12 and 13 June 2003. The Court of Criminal Appeal described evidence that a cement mixer hired by two co-accused was taken to Fee’s home; that Fee asked Terence Cassidy to buy 13 bags of icing sugar; and that Fee travelled between two farms and was seen at a shed at Thornfield shortly before it was raided. Gardaí found co-accused mixing explosive material there. When Fee was stopped nearby, a bucket containing an explosive substance was found in his van. The court said the trial court had accepted these matters as established and found them proved cumulatively beyond reasonable doubt.
Fee challenged Cassidy’s reliability and argued that he should have been treated as an accomplice. The appeal court held that the trial court had carefully assessed inconsistencies in Cassidy’s account and was entitled to rely on his evidence about the sugar purchases. It found no basis to treat him as an accomplice. The court also rejected arguments concerning the handling of a fleece removed from Fee’s vehicle, the identification evidence of Detective Garda Ryan, radio messages admitted for the limited purpose of assessing consistency, and whether the trial court had adequate evidence of the intent required for the section 3 offence.
The appeal court accepted that removing the fleece from the vehicle was undesirable, but found no established prejudice to the fairness of the trial. On intent, it held that the trial court could infer the required intent from the circumstances, including the quantity and potential effects of the explosive material. It therefore refused leave to appeal on each ground.