The Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that a newly discovered confession showed Feichín Hannon’s conviction was a miscarriage of justice and granted him a certificate under section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993.
The judgment, delivered by Hardiman J. on 27 April 2009, followed an application brought after the complainant, Una Hardester, retracted her allegations. Hannon had been convicted by a jury of sexual assault and common assault arising from an alleged incident on 27 January 1997. The court said he was innocent, a position accepted by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the hearing.
In 2006, Hardester returned to the area and told her mother and Hannon’s sister that she had made up the allegations. She also gave statements to gardaí admitting that her complaint and trial evidence were false. The judgment records her explanation that she had no reason beyond Hannon being “one of the Hannons”. It also records her remorse and her wish to clear his name.
The DPP did not oppose Hannon’s late application to appeal in light of the retraction. The court considered that appeal application alongside his separate request for a section 9 certificate. The DPP opposed the certificate request, arguing that a miscarriage of justice required some fault by prosecutors, gardaí or other State agents. The court rejected that proposed requirement in Hannon’s circumstances.
The judgment said the issue before it was narrow: whether a person now recognised as having been innocent could receive a certificate on that basis. It relied on earlier Irish authority describing innocence as the primary meaning of “miscarriage of justice” under section 9, and considered relevant international instruments. The court concluded that the complainant’s confession was a new and newly discovered fact showing that Hannon’s conviction was a miscarriage of justice.
The certificate was the order made in this judgment. The court did not determine or award compensation; under section 9, compensation is a separate matter for the Minister for Justice following an application. The judgment also noted that miscarriage of justice may extend beyond actual innocence to failures in the administration of the justice system, but that broader question was not necessary to decide this application.