The Court of Appeal has dismissed Julian Flohr’s appeal against his conviction for membership of an unlawful organisation styling itself the IRA, leaving in place the Special Criminal Court’s decision and sentence.
The Special Criminal Court convicted Flohr on 25 January 2019 of being an IRA member on 14 August 2016. It sentenced him to two years and ten months in prison on 18 February 2019, backdated to 20 May 2018 to account for time spent on remand. The appeal concerned the conviction.
The case arose from a Garda stop in the Dromahair area of County Leitrim at about 10.30pm on 14 August 2016. Flohr was a front-seat passenger in a car driven by Damien McFadden. Gardaí searching the car found a heavy object in a children’s backpack, wrapped in black material and duct tape, with soil on it. An Army disposal officer later identified it as an exact replica of a live mortar, described in the judgment as a training mortar.
At trial, the prosecution relied on evidence from Detective Chief Superintendent Thomas Maguire that he believed Flohr was an IRA member, alongside evidence about the journey and the mortar. The Special Criminal Court found that the circumstances of the journey supported the belief evidence. It considered the remote location, the car’s direction of travel, the apparent purpose of moving the mortar and Flohr’s conduct as Gardaí approached. The Court of Appeal said this was more than mere presence in a car and provided compelling independent support for the membership charge.
Flohr also challenged the restrictions on questioning Maguire about the sources and basis of his belief. The Special Criminal Court had reviewed material held by Gardaí and upheld a public interest privilege claim, while stating that the material contained nothing that could assist the defence. The Court of Appeal accepted that the claim restricted cross-examination, but found the trial court’s review and the other supporting evidence sufficient in the circumstances. It concluded that admitting the belief evidence did not make the trial unfair or undermine the safety of the conviction.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal did not conduct a new trial; it rejected the challenges to the conviction and to the handling of the privilege claim.