The Court of Criminal Appeal has overturned a man’s conviction 40 years ago for the manslaughter of a young woman, whose body was found in the Dublin mountains in late 1971 two months after she had disappeared.
The three judge court quashed Martin Conmey’s conviction as unsafe after finding “newly discovered facts” showed there may have been a miscarriage of justice in his case.
The court found initial statements taken by gardaí from certain witnesses in the case, which were different to later statements provided by those witnesses, had not been supplied to the defence when they should have been. Lawyers for Mr Conmey had argued those original statements proved he was innocent.
The verdict was followed by a loud round of applause, embraces and tears of joy from a large number of friends, family and supporters of Mr Conmey, who had gathered in the Four Courts.
A shocked and very emotional Mr Conmey said afterwards his faith in the justice system had been restored and he thanked his wife and son for their support and belief in him.
Mr Conmey (59), Porterstown Lane, Ratoath, Co Meath, had always maintained he was not responsible for the death of 19-year-old civil servant Una Lynsky. She vanished while returning home from work on the evening of October 12th, 1971.
Her journey from the bus stop to her family home at Porterstown Lane should have taken 15 minutes by foot but she never returned home. Two months later her body was discovered in a remote part of the Dublin mountains.
A postmortem examination failed to reveal exactly how Ms Lynskey died. She had no broken bones and there were no signs she was strangled.
Mr Conmey and another man, Dick Donnelly, was convicted of her manslaughter in 1972. A third man, Martin Kerrigan, was also suspected of having been involved in Ms Lynskey’s death, but he was abducted and killed a short time after her body was discovered.
Mr Donnelly won his appeal against his conviction in 1973 but Mr Conmey was unsuccessful in his appeal and served a three-year sentence for the offence.
He later again appealed against his conviction under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 which allows an appeal to be brought on the basis of newly discovered facts. His lawyers will now seek a declaration there was a miscarriage of justice in the case.
In quashing the conviction, the court, comprising Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, presiding, and sitting with Mr Justice Declan Budd and Mr Justice Eamon de Valera, found certain original statements made by witnesses at Mr Conmey’s trial were not disclosed to the defence when they should have been.
Gardaí took witness statements from three men and then returned a number of days later to take further statements, which were different from the originals, the court noted.
Mr Justice Hardiman said the reasons for the gardaí’s actions and why the statements had changed was unexplained.
Lawyers for Mr Conmey argued the non-disclosure in 1972 of witness statements favouring the defence proved his innocence. It was claimed certain witness statements and evidence given at his trial were inconsistent with earlier statements to gardaí which were not disclosed.
In those earlier statements, the witnesses were unable to place Mr Conmey or a car owned by Mr Donnelly, in which the DPP had alleged Mr Conmey was travelling, on Poterstown Lane between 7pm and 7.15pm on the evening Ms Lynskey was last seen.
The statements were all inconsistent with the State’s case Mr Conmey was in the back seat of the car in Porterstown Lane at the relevant time.
Those statements were taken from three witnesses Martin Madden, John Shevlin and Seán Reilly. It was claimed their evidence at Mr Conmey’s trial placed Mr Donnelly’s car in the Porterstown area at the relevant time and were central to securing a conviction against Mr Conmey.
One of the witnesses, Seán Reilly the court heard, said he was kept at a Garda station for five hours and was subjected to abuse and assault prior to his making his the later statement.
In opposing the application, the DPP argued delay by Mr Conmey in bringing the action. It was also argued relevant material was not withheld from Mr Conmey and that the statements at issue were not significant enough to have any realistic effect on Mr Conmey’s trial.