The Court of Appeal has allowed Darren Weldon’s appeal against his conviction for membership of the IRA, finding that a key part of the Special Criminal Court’s reasoning was factually incorrect and that the conviction was unsafe.
In a judgment delivered on 27 June 2018, the court said the trial court had mistakenly treated a photograph as showing Weldon with two men who had been convicted of membership of the same unlawful organisation. In fact, the photograph showed Vincent Ryan and Philip Forsyth, and Weldon was not in it. The appeal court also said neither man had been convicted of that offence.
The Special Criminal Court had relied on a combination of evidence: a senior Garda officer’s belief that Weldon was a member, DNA evidence linking him to a number plate found on the car used in the Newry courthouse bombing, and photographs found on his phone. The trial court treated a photograph of the late Alan Ryan accompanied by a laudatory quote as independent support for the officer’s belief. The Court of Appeal agreed with that assessment.
But the appeal court said the trial court’s mistaken treatment of the other photograph was a crucial strand in its overall assessment. Because the trial court had weighed the evidence together, the appeal court said it was difficult to determine the weight given to each item. Removing a key strand left a substantial gap in the trial court’s reasoning. It concluded the conviction was unsafe and allowed the appeal.
Weldon had been convicted by the Special Criminal Court of membership of an unlawful organisation, contrary to section 21 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. He was sentenced in December 2016 to five years in prison, with 12 months suspended. The appeal judgment allows the appeal against conviction; it does not state that the appeal court entered an acquittal or made any further order.
The appeal court said it was unnecessary to examine the grounds concerning the DNA evidence further after its finding about the photograph. The judgment records that Weldon advanced 24 grounds of appeal, including challenges to the officer’s belief evidence, the DNA evidence, the phone material, his arrest and the taking of forensic samples.