The Supreme Court has dismissed Thomas Redmond’s challenge to a law allowing a senior Garda officer’s belief that someone is a member of an unlawful organisation to be admitted as evidence in a membership trial. The Court held that the provision does not breach the constitutional right to a fair trial when the belief evidence is supported by other evidence or circumstances relevant to the charge.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 17 December 2015, concerned section 3(2) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1972. The Court said the provision applies only to membership of an unlawful organisation tried before the Special Criminal Court, and only in the legal circumstances set out in the judgment. It does not create a presumption in favour of a Chief Superintendent’s evidence or change the prosecution’s burden of proof.
Redmond had been convicted in 2002 of membership of the self-styled IRA. The Special Criminal Court heard evidence that he threw a metal object from a window as gardaí arrived to search premises under his control in County Wexford. A ballistics expert said the object was part of an improvised grenade mechanism. The court also heard that an improvised firing pin found in a car attributed to Redmond matched firing pins found in two arms dumps in the county. A Chief Superintendent testified that he believed Redmond was a member of the organisation.
The trial court’s written decision relied on the officer’s evidence alongside forensic evidence. Redmond’s conviction was upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2004. He later brought a separate civil action seeking a declaration that the 1972 provision was unconstitutional. The High Court rejected that claim in 2009, and the Supreme Court heard his appeal in October 2015.
Redmond argued that an accused could not adequately challenge an officer’s belief when its sources were withheld under informer privilege. He also argued that appointing a special advocate to examine confidential material would not cure the unfairness. The State opposed the challenge. The Supreme Court reviewed safeguards including cross-examination of the officer, judicial scrutiny of confidential material where requested, and the possibility of the accused presenting evidence. It emphasised that the trial court must assess all admissible evidence and that belief evidence has no special status.
The ruling does not require a fixed method for weighing evidence, nor does it declare belief evidence sufficient on its own. The Court said the constitutional guarantee is met where that evidence forms part of a body of evidence, with other relevant support, and the trial court decides whether guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It dismissed Redmond’s claim that section 3(2) is unconstitutional.