The Special Criminal Court yesterday refused to grant a certificate to Paul Ward for leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin.
Ward (34), a Dubliner, was jailed for life last November on being found guilty of the murder of Ms Guerin on June 26th, 1996. The conviction followed a 31-day trial at the Special Criminal Court.
The refusal to grant leave to appeal allows Ward to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal against the order. ) Ward's counsel, Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, applied yesterday for a certificate for leave to appeal against the conviction. Mr MacEntee submitted that the conviction of Ward was unsafe as a matter of law.
He said the essential point was whether the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, who "blatantly and persistently lied" to the gardai and the court, could safely ground a conviction for murder. Mr MacEntee submitted that Charles Bowden, who provided the main prosecution evidence against Ward, was a "supergrass".
He said there was no doubt that Bowden "participated wholeheartedly" in the activities of the drugdealing organisation and had volunteered information to the gardai against people alleged to be his confederates.
Counsel said that where there was no corroboration the court was thrown back "very dangerously" on the subjective appraisal of a witness and the court was forced back upon "speculation and theorising."
Mr MacEntee said: "The correct judicial approach to the evidence of a person in the Bowden position presents a legal problem of great public importance, on which there is no authority in this jurisdiction and in which the interests of the administration of justice would be served by having the defendant returned to the Court of Criminal Appeal." He submitted that having stated the legal principles of law relating to the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, the court "perhaps understandably" fell into an error in its application.
Rejecting leave to appeal, Mr Justice Barr, presiding, said Mr MacEntee submitted that while the court had correctly stated the legal principles in relation to the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, it had erred in its application of the principles.
The court was satisfied there was no pertinent factor of law which would justify granting a certificate of leave to appeal in the case.
The judge said the court's refusal did not prevent the accused man from grounding any appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the same legal arguments.