The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed an appeal by convicted murderer Catherine Nevin against a High Court decision relating to the estate of her late husband, Thomas.
Mr Nevin was shot dead at the Nevins' pub, Jack White's Inn, near Brittas Bay, Co Wicklow, on March 19th, 1996.
The processing of Mr Nevin's estate has been delayed by criminal proceedings against Catherine Nevin (52), who was ultimately found guilty of murder and soliciting three men to murder her husband on various dates prior to his fatal shooting. Her appeal against that verdict was dismissed on May 14th, 2003. She is serving a life sentence.
On March 18th, 1997, the High Court refused an application by Catherine Nevin to set aside a caveat lodged by Thomas Nevin's mother, Mrs Nora Nevin, of Loughrea, Co Galway - also since deceased - to prevent Catherine Nevin processing the estate of her late husband.
An appeal against that order was brought to the Supreme Court by lawyers for Catherine Nevin but yesterday, Mr Brian Speirin SC, for the late Mrs Nora Nevin, applied to have the appeal set aside for want of prosecution. Counsel for Catherine Nevin opposed the application.
Meanwhile, a case is now being taken by Catherine Nevin to the European Court of Human Rights in a bid to overturn her conviction.
She will contend that, due to adverse publicity and other factors, she did not get a fair trial when her case was before the Central Criminal Court. Giving judgment on yesterday's application, Mr Justice Murray said counsel for Catherine Nevin had submitted that any delay (in processing the appeal) was explicable because of the fact that no steps could be taken with the appeal until the criminal proceedings had reached a final determination.
The judge said that was correct. However, it had been argued on behalf of the late Nora Nevin's side that the appeal should be dismissed because of the subsequent delay. It had been argued on behalf of Catherine Nevin that the delay was not inordinate. It had also been explained that there had been a change of solicitor and it had been argued that the balance of convenience favoured a refusal of the application on behalf of Mr Nevin's late mother.
It had also been submitted that a case was being taken to the European Court of Human Rights but that was at a most preliminary stage, the judge noted. The late Nora Nevin's side and the State were not parties in those proceedings. He said the court must have regard to the rights of all parties. The applicant (the late Nora Nevin's side) was entitled to have the question concerning the estate of Thomas Nevin decided on by the courts within a reasonable time. He did not consider the delay in taking any steps in the proceedings had in any sense been excused.
The court considered the delay to be inordinate in the circumstances and would grant an order dismissing the appeal.