Supreme Court reserves decision on Mark Nash delay appeal
This report is a localnews.ie summary based on public court reporting and records; sources are listed below.
The Supreme Court reserved its decision on Mark Nash’s appeal against the refusal of damages for alleged delays in prosecuting the Grangegorman murders. Nash also sought his legal costs. The proceedings were reported on 1 July 2016.
Nash was serving a life sentence following his conviction for the 1997 murders of Sylvia Sheils, 59, and Mary Callanan, 61, at sheltered accommodation in Grangegorman, Dublin. That conviction was being appealed. He had earlier been convicted over the murders of two people in Ballintober, Co Roscommon, also in 1997.
The High Court rejected Nash’s attempt to stop the trial in 2012. He relied on delays, publicity and unavailable witnesses, among them Dean Lyons, who died in 2000. Mr Justice Michael Moriarty’s rulings were appealed, and the Supreme Court permitted the trial in 2014. Nash maintained that the delay violated protections under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights requiring an expeditious trial.
Chief Justice Ms Susan Denham heard the damages appeal alongside Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne. The remaining panel members were Mr Justice Frank Clarke, Mr Justice Peter Charleton and Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell.
Representing Nash, Hugh Hartnett SC said the murder charges were brought in 2009, ten years after the DPP had directed prosecution for both killings. The court heard that Nash made admissions to gardaí in August 1997 and subsequently withdrew them. Defence counsel argued that earlier testing of his clothing would have produced a more satisfactory trial. Counsel also said suspicion concerning the murders had blocked Nash’s proposed prison transfer to England.
His lawyers sought to add evidence and accused the Forensic Science Laboratory of withholding information about potentially compromised forensic material. The report described DNA sampling from Nash’s jacket in a laboratory previously used to brush bloodstained items from the murder scene. His initial expert was not informed of this. It emerged before trial after another defence expert was engaged, contributing to delay.
For the DPP, Brendan Grehan SC opposed the applications and objected to using the delay proceedings to raise trial issues. He denied that the laboratory had lacked candour, saying the examinations were about six weeks apart. He also disputed any breach of Nash’s rights through delay, arguing that a responsible prosecutor could not have brought charges earlier.