Court orders disclosure of Nevin files

Counsel for Nevin sought access to a number of documents, which they claim are “highly relevant” to their client’s attempt to have her 10-year-old conviction declared a miscarriage of justice.

In April 2000, Nevin (aged 58) was convicted of murdering her husband Tom at their pub, Jack White’s Inn, Brittas Bay on March 19, 1996.

Mrs Nevin was also convicted of soliciting Mr Heapes and Mr Jones, and another man Mr William McClean, to kill her husband.

She alleges material, not available to her legal team at the time of her trial, represent “newly discovered facts” in her case, and will assist her in undermining the credibility of the three men.

Her lawyers argue the entire case “depended almost entirely on these three men” and that without them “there would be no murder conviction”. They also contend that if one was shown to be lacking in credibility than the “close connectivity of the other” could have caused “the case to tumble”.

Mrs Nevin is serving a life sentence on the murder charge and a concurrent seven-year term on the soliciting charges. Her appeal against conviction was dismissed in 2003.

Today the three judge appeal court heard there were 106 “separate, suspect forms” over which privilege was being claimed.

The CCA said, having regard “to strong statements” made as about the documents’ value, it was ordering their disclosure as they relate to Mr Heapes and Mr Jones.

It said the two “very brief forms” were to be disclosed in “full form”.

The court adjourned briefly to allow Ms Nevin’s legal team examine the documents.

Mr Hugh Harnett SC, for Nevin, said it was clear the “suspect forms” were relevant to his clients application, as they identified Mr Heapes and Mr Jones as "suspects" in the investigation of Mr Nevin’s murder, and that this “contradicted” previous evidence that these forms were for “mere jottings”.

An earlier hearing of Ms Nevin’s bid to have her conviction declared a miscarriage of justice, heard Garda evidence that a “suspect antecedent history” file in respect of Mr McClean was a “worthless” document with “no intelligence value”.

Lawyers for Nevin say this document was only brought to their attention by a newspaper article, published eight years after their client was jailed for life.

It lists William McClean’s associates as members of illegal and paramilitary organisations, including the INLA and Provisional IRA.

Mr McClean’s “emphatically” denied “three times” during the trial that he had any links to paramilitary organisations but her lawyers say the availability of this form in the year 2000, “might have suggested a new line of inquiry”.

The CCA heard it was “accepted” not making this material available ten years ago was an "oversight" and that it wasn’t known “what other oversights there may have been”.

Mr Tom O’Connell SC, for the DPP, said the existence of so many forms, “supports” the view they were collated for “persons of interest”.

He said it “cannot be” that 106 people were “real suspects” in the investigation.

Counsel for the State said “the proof” of this “was in the pudding” in that Mr McClean was “never arrested”.

The court was told the forms “were not evidence” and did not contain any evidence, and that the “weight” attaching to them was “overstated” because of their “unfortunate” titles.

Lawyers for Nevin also argue that a “newly discovered fact” of “crucial” importance was the evidence of Philip Tobin who gave a sworn affadavit that he was asked to provide Brian Capper, an associate of Mr Heapes with an alibi on the night Tom Nevin was murdered.

The court heard this approach took place “in the presence” of Mr Heapes.

The CCA adjourned its decision in the case. Mr Justice Hardiman said “in the prevailing circumstances”, it was “not possible” to “formulate a coherent judgement” at this stage.

The court said it “hopes” to deliver its decision on the matter soon.