State's refusal to disclose statements in Guerin murder case is challenged

The State is refusing to disclose confidential Garda statements to lawyers for a man charged with the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin because it is after "bigger fish", the Supreme Court was told yesterday.

Mr Patrick MacEntee SC argued that the State, if it wanted to get "bigger fish", could not do so by depriving Mr Paul Ward of his constitutional rights.

Mr MacEntee said the State case against Mr Ward relied principally on statements from Charles Bowden - "an accomplice and apparently a police informer" who was partially immunised and on a recently established Witness Protection Scheme. Some of those statements were "wholly dishonest" and exculpatory.

He was opening an appeal by Mr Ward (33), from Windmill Park, Crumlin, with an address at Walkinstown Road, Dublin, against a High Court decision that his trial should proceed before the non-jury Special Criminal Court and that access by his lawyers to 40 confidential statements made by 20 informants to gardai should be prohibited.

Mr Ward is charged with the murder of Ms Guerin at Naas Road, Clondalkin, on June 26th 1996.

He was arraigned at the Special Criminal Court last January and pleaded not guilty but the trial has been adjourned to October 6th to facilitate court proceedings relating to the non-disclosure of the statements and whether he should be tried by the non-jury court.

At the outset of yesterday's Supreme Court appeal, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said it was a very important case.

Mr MacEntee outlined events from the arrest of Mr Ward on October 16th, 1996 to the present appeal.

He noted a small book of evidence was served in April 1997.

A trial date was set for January 13th, 1998 but additional substantial evidence was served on the defence on December 19th, 1997, the last day of the law term, including evidence from Mr Bowden.

It was not until then the defence had any notice the prosecution intended to redirect the case substantially, he said.

A "vast" amount of unused material was made available to the defence for inspection on December 22nd. Additional evidence, related to calls alleged to have been made between various people who, the State claimed, were, with Mr Ward, involved in a conspiracy to kill Ms Guerin, was served on January 7th.

Also on January 7th, the defence was told of a number of statements which the State claimed it was entitled to withhold on grounds of security, Mr MacEntee said.

The defence got a week's adjournment on January 12th. In the interim, the Special Criminal Court indicated a separate division of the court would look at the contested statements but later decided this was impractical. It heard evidence from Assistant Commissioner Tony Hickey on January 15th and decided the court of trial would inspect the statements.

The trial opened on January 20th and Mr Ward pleaded not guilty.

The court ruled that the confidential documents be disclosed to Mr Ward's lawyers but not to Mr Ward so the lawyers could determine their relevancy and apply to the court to rule on what disclosure might be made.

The prosecution challenged that ruling in the High Court which, last March, overturned the Special Criminal Court's decision to disclose the statements and also rejected a parallel challenge by Mr Ward against the decision to try him before the Special Criminal Court.

Yesterday, Mr MacEntee said the Supreme Court had to know what case the prosecution was making against his client. He read the opening statement from the prosecution to the Special Criminal Court during Mr Ward's trial last January.

In that statement, the prosecution alleged Mr Ward was part of a criminal gang and a conspiracy to murder Ms Guerin. It alleged he assisted the killers by providing a bolthole for them after the shooting and by disposing of the weapon.

Mr MacEntee said questions put by the State to Assistant Commissioner Hickey about the undisclosed statements were "densely cryptic".

He submitted the State and Garda were concerned not just with Mr Ward but with other cases. He said the Garda strategy was to keep certain informants out of the limelight. The law provided for privilege for Garda informants but this was subject to the "innocence exception" and to the requirements of the Constitution.

The appeal continues today before the five-judge court.