Court reserves judgment on Ward appeal

The Court of Criminal Appeal has reserved judgment on the appeal by Dubliner Paul Ward against his conviction for the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin.

Mr Justice Murphy, sitting with Mr Justice O’Caoimh and Mr Justice McKechnie, indicated today, given the volume of paper presented to the court for the four-day appeal hearing, the decision would take "some time".

In November 1998, Ward (37), with an address in Walkinstown, was jailed for life by the non-jury Special Criminal Court for the murder of Ms Guerin (36), a Sunday Independentreporter, at Naas Road, Clondalkin, on June 26th, 1996. She was shot dead by a pillion passenger on a motorcyle which drew up alongside her car at traffic lights.

Opposing the appeal today, Mr Peter Charleton SC, for the DPP, said Ward’s legal team had launched a collateral attack on the credibility of State witness Charles Bowden on matters which were not central to the issues in Ward’s trial.

These matters included Bowden’s incorrectly placing Ward at a gathering in the Hole in the Wall pub on the afternoon of Ms Guerin’s murder. Bowden had admitted he was wrong about placing Ward there. However, Bowden had never had any difficulty in placing Ward at a meeting in Brian Meehan’s flat and in a car with Meehan, Bowden and another man.

These issues were central. Bowden had testified that there was a discussion relating to Ms Guerin at Meehan’s flat, a conversation in the car about getting a gun and that Ward was present on both occasions.

Mr Charleton said Bowden's wife had gone to the Sunday World(prior to Bowden giving evidence at Ward's trial) with complaints by Bowden about his treatment in prison and the journalist had put a "spin" on the story suggesting Bowden might not give evidence.

Counsel agreed there was no doubt Bowden had begun to "wage war" on the Department of Justice because of lack of information as to his future.

However, Mr Charleton said, he believed there was never any point where Bowden had threatened not to testify and it was incorrect for the defence to suggest he had.

Counsel said the SCC was well aware of the defects in Bowden’s credibility and had specified these with eloquence and fullness. There was no rule that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice must be rejected. The requirement was for a warning to be given. There was not the slightest doubt the SCC had warned itself of the danger of conviction on the basis of uncorroborated evidence but, where the court was satisfied there was no danger, it could convict.

There was support for the court’s decision, he said. Ward had lied about a number of issues. A number of witnesses had also testified about seeing a motorcyle at Greenmount Industrial Estate soon after the murder. While the SCC did not deal with that in its judgment, that did not mean the court did not have regard to that. This was not a case where the evidence of Bowden was unsupported.

Replying for Ward, Mr Barry White SC, said Mr Charleton had adopted a "most disconcerting" approach to the appeal and was ignoring the laws of evidence. It was not for Mr Charleton to state that Ward had lied to the SCC. Mr Charleton had asserted Ward had lied but the State had called no evidence to rebut Ward’s account.

Mr Charleton was effectively asking the court to say there was more behind this case than met the eye and there was "no smoke without fire". It appeared the SCC had made no finding of any corroboration for Bowden’s testimony and it was not proper for the DPP to raise this issue now.

Counsel said the DPP had advanced what was described as a "rational hypothesis" for what happened on June 26th 1996. This involved Ward’s house to be the safe bolthole for the motorcycle and gun used in Ms Guerin’s murder. There was an error in that hypothesis because it presumed the killing would occur at the most convenient spot to Ward’s home but Ms Guerin could have gone anywhere after leaving Naas.

The DPP was suggesting there was "a grand plan" to kill but Bowden had never at any stage outlined any details of that. Despite this, the SCC had concluded Ward had participated in this plan and provided crucial back-up service in taking charge of the disposal of the gun and motorcycle used.

There was no evidence at all before the court from Bowden in relation to the motorcyle. "Where the SCC got that, I do not know," Mr White said. He added the court had repeated the error a number of times in its decision.

Mr White added the State had referred to a number of phone calls between Brian Meehan and Paul Ward on the day of the kiling. However, the State had failed to advance any evidence that the number of calls constituted abnormal communication between those two men.