The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals in an estate dispute brought by Patrick Nevin and Margaret Lavelle, upholding a High Court ruling that Catherine Nevin’s conviction for murdering her husband could be admitted as prima facie evidence in the civil proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 7 March 2017, concerns proceedings seeking declarations that Catherine Nevin is precluded from taking a share of her husband’s estate under common law and section 120 of the Succession Act 1965. The deceased was killed on 19 March 1996. Nevin was convicted in 2000 of his murder and of soliciting three people to murder him. The judgment records that appeals and other post-conviction applications had been dismissed or struck out by February 2013. Nevin’s defence denies involvement in the murder.
The High Court had ruled that the conviction was admissible as prima facie evidence that Nevin committed the murder. The Court of Appeal agreed with the result, finding the conviction’s reliability and relevance undeniable and its admission justified by necessity and relevance. The court said the conviction followed a trial before a judge and jury, with appeals exhausted. It rejected the argument that the High Court had correctly treated an earlier English case, *Crippen*, as establishing the relevant rule in Irish law, but upheld the ruling on other grounds, including reasoning from a New Zealand Court of Appeal decision.
The court stressed that this was a limited preliminary decision about admissibility. It did not decide the proper interpretation of section 120(1), including whether proof of the conviction alone would satisfy that section. The High Court must consider that question at the full hearing after submissions from both sides. The Court of Appeal also noted that admissibility of the public record of the conviction itself as proof that a conviction occurred was not disputed.
One appeal concerned an earlier refusal to stay the plaintiffs’ motion while a further criminal appeal-related application was outstanding. That application had since been refused, making the stay appeal moot. The Court of Appeal nevertheless dismissed it, noting the appellant’s contention that it had a costs implication. It dismissed both appeals overall.