In dismissing Catherine Nevin's appeal, Mr Justice Geoghegan said the three principal grounds of appeal related to adverse publicity; the failure to direct separate trials on the murder and solicitation counts; and the nature of the trial judge's charge.
On publicity, he said that there was a great deal of "inappropriate and inexcusable" press coverage of the case before and during Ms Nevin's first, but aborted, trial. The defence had particularly objected to articles by crime correspondents about how the gardaí were understood to be viewing the investigation. While none of the articles pointed a definite finger of guilt at Ms Nevin, it would have been "clearly implied". The defence also objected to "colour pieces" and the trial judge had banned photos of Nevin and comment on her personal appearance.
However, the trial judge also ruled, notwithstanding the articles, there was no real or serious risk of an unfair trial and the trial proceeded.
The appeal court held the various rulings by the trial judge dealing with publicity issues were within her discretion to make and were proper rulings.
Mr Justice Geoghegan noted there was a perception in some legal circles that, because the courts had permitted certain trials to proceed, including that of the man at the centre of the X case, it could never be possible to stop a trial on the grounds of adverse media publicity. That perception was "completely wrong".
Not every trial judge would take an identical view on whether there could be a fair trial on a set of identical facts. Trial judges must have discretion on that matter and the appeal court should not interfere with that discretion unless it was exercised wrongly. Even then, there would be other factors to consider, including whether the media disclosed previous convictions.
There was a big difference between a one-day trial taking place immediately after adverse publicity and a 40-day trial. From reading the transcript, the appeal court could not but be impressed at the "calm and resolute way" the trial judge conducted the trial from start to finish and the length of time the jury took in reaching their verdicts. The transcript gave an impression, at every turn, of "a fair and orderly trial".
While there was always the possibility, which could never be proved or disproved, that one or more jurors were privately prejudiced by earlier publicity, the appeal court considered that unlikely in the extreme.
The court rejected all grounds of appeal based on adverse publicity, Garda conspiracy against Nevin, the trial judge's refusal to hold a separate inquiry into alleged leaks and her refusal to compel journalists to disclose sources of their articles.
On the refusal to direct separate trials on the murder and three soliciting counts, the court held the joinder of the charges was valid in accordance with law and established principles and that the refusal to direct separate charges was within the trial judge's discretion and a lawful exercise of that discretion. She was also correct in ruling the evidence on the soliciting charges was admissible in relation to the murder charge. It said charges could be joined if founded on the same facts or part of a series of similar offences. The fact the solicitation offences were separated in time from the murder by a period of six to seven years did not prevent joinder of the offences.
All four charges were factually similar and supported by evidence suggesting a conspiracy or attempted conspiracy by Nevin to murder her husband. They were also similar in law as they comprised charges of murder and soliciting to murder.
Rejected grounds relating to the trial judge's charge to the jury, the court held the trial judge had no obligation to repeat to the jury all of the defence's arguments concerning the circumstantial evidence in the case and described her directions to the jury on such evidence as "most appropriate". All of the evidence, both prosecution and defence, was fairly reviewed.
The court also held evidence from Mr Nevin's family and gardaí rebutting Nevin's claim that Tom Nevin was a member of the IRA was admissible and the jury was entitled to accept evidence from Mr Gerry Heapes in relation to a soliciting charge.
During the appeal, the court examined Garda files relating to the three men who said they were solicited by Nevin. In its decision, it said it was completely satisfied there was nothing in the files that could have assisted Nevin's defence. Finally, the court dismissed a claim that the defence was prejudiced by the failure to disclose a list of pubs with suspected connections to paramilitaries, which list initially included Jack White's Inn on the basis that the Nevin's previous pub premises had been frequented by persons with IRA connections.
After inquiries proved negative, the pub was excluded as a target for further investigation. Nor was the defence prejudiced by not having documents concerning legal proceedings taken by two Arklow-based gardaí, the court ruled.
