THE SPECIAL CRIMINAL COURT

Barr J.
Smyth J.
Ballagh J.

THE PEOPLE
-v-
PAUL WARD

Ruling of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Barr on the 23rd day of October, 1998.

	The accused has challenged the legality of his arrest and subsequent detention and interrogation at Lucan garda station under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 from 16th to 18th October, 1996 on five grounds.  The first relates to his earlier arrest under Section 30 of the 1939 Act by D. Garda Sheeran at the Green Isle hotel on the night of  7th/8th October, 1996 and his subsequent detention at Ronanstown garda station until in or about 2.45 a.m. on the 8th when he was released from custody.  The second ground relates to the alleged illegality of his arrest by Inspector (then D. Sergt.) Kennedy on 16th October at 3.30 p.m. which it is submitted vitiated the legality of his subsequent detention at Lucan garda station.  The third ground relates to the alleged failure of the gardai to accord to the accused his basic right to appropriate medication which it is alleged he required to counter substantial withdrawal symptoms relating to heroin addiction from which he was allegedly suffering at all material times while in custody at Lucan.  It is submitted that even if the court rejects the accused's submissions on the first two grounds, in the premises his detention and interrogation at all material times at Lucan was unlawful.  The fourth ground relates to an allegation of substantial physical abuse of the accused by D. Srgt. Condon during  interrogation by him and D. Garda Maher which allegedly commenced in or about 8.00 a.m. on 17th October in course of which it is contended he sustained a significant physical injury to his neck when held in a Nelson lock in course of an assault by both gardai.  It is submitted that the violent conduct of D. Srgt. Condon and his colleague at that time vitiated the legality of all subsequent interrogations of the accused by the police at Lucan garda station.
	A fifth ground, not originally referred to by the defence, emerged in course of the voir dire.  It transpired in evidence that during the accused's detention at Lucan he was visited, first, by his girlfriend, Vanessa Meehan, and subsequently by his elderly mother, Mrs. Elizabeth Ward, both of whom were in police custody elsewhere at that time pursuant to arrests under Section 30.  The visits were arranged and facilitated by the gardai.  No evidence was given on their behalf as to why they did so.  The court did not hear evidence in course of the voir dire as to certain verbal statements allegedly made by the accused in course of interrogation which the prosecution contend amount to admissions by him in relation to the offence charged.  The alleged statements are disputed by the accused.  However, the court has been informed by defence counsel, and it does not appear to be in dispute, that soon after the accused was allowed to meet his girlfriend and subsequently his mother, he made verbal statements to interrogating gardai which the prosecution contend amount to admission.  It is submitted on behalf of the accused that the meeting with his girlfriend and his mother, orchestrated by the gardai, require an explanation from the prosecution as to why they took place and that there is an onus on the prosecution to establish that the interrogating gardai had respected the accused's basic right to fair procedures in the matter of his interrogation by the police and that such rights were not violated by them.  It was submitted that the meetings in question might have had an improper purpose and motivation.  It was contended that the onus was on the prosecution to negative that possibility and as that onus had not been discharged, the effect is that the legality of subsequent interrogations of the accused after his meeting with Ms. Meehan has been vitiated.  It was further submitted that even if the meetings in question did not amount to an oppression of the accused to which he succumbed and did not weaken his resolve not to co-operate with the police, subsequent interrogations of the accused should be declared unlawful on the ground that the police ought not to be allowed the benefit of any evidence obtained after it orchestrated the meetings in question, the circumstances and purposes of which it has failed to justify.  
	The first two grounds may be conveniently dealt with together.  As to the Green Isle hotel arrest; the court has heard evidence from D. Garda Sheeran; Gardai Doolan and Egan; several witnesses from the hotel, being staff and security personnel, and also the accused.  Most of the salient facts are conceded or have not been challenged by the defence.  The court is satisfied as to the following:-
	The accused and his brother, Seamus, together with his brother, Patrick, arrived at the Green Isle hotel, Clondalkin, at or about 10.00 p.m. on 7th October, 1996, having been driven there by Patrick Ward in his Hiace van.  The vehicle was driven into the hotel car-park.  Soon afterwards it was driven out again and immediately returned.  This was regarded as suspicious by security personnel.  The accused alone approached the reception desk and booked a double room for the night.  Neither he or his brother, Seamus, had an overnight bag or any luggage.  He filled out a registration card in which he entered a false name and address.  He was given a double room at ground floor level.  He paid cash in advance.  He and his brother, Seamus, went to the room.  Patrick Ward came into the hotel but did not acknowledge or associate with his brothers.  He went to the bar and subsequently left the premises.  A security man checked the information furnished by the accused and found that the address given was false.  It was decided to keep the bedroom under observation.  After a time one of the occupants left it and proceeded to wander around the hotel leaving certain fire doors open behind him.  It appears that he may have discovered that he was under observation.  He entered a crowded room where a function was in progress and was not seen again.  He did not return to the bedroom.  At that stage the suspicious behaviour of the Ward brothers was reported to the duty manager.  Some time before then another hotel had been robbed at night by purported guests who had rented a bedroom.  The manager reported his suspicions to the police and sought their assistance.  D. Garda Sheeran was sent to investigate.  He drove to the hotel alone.  He was armed with a revolver.  As a result of what he learned from the hotel personnel he sent for assistance.  Gardai Doolan and Egan, unarmed uniformed members who were on patrol-car duty in the sub-district, arrived at the hotel.  It is unclear how many gardai responded to D. Garda Sheeran's call for help.  Other uniformed police may also have done so.  The court is satisfied that nothing turns on that as the accused accepts that only three policemen entered his bedroom, i.e., Detective Garda Sheeran and the two uniformed members, Gardai Doolan and Egan.  This accords with the prosecution evidence.  There may have been other officers on watch outside the building.  Mr. Nolan, the duty manager, opened the bedroom door with a master key but did not enter the room.  D. Garda Sheeran and Gardai Doolan and Egan did so.  The accused was the only person in the room.  He appeared to be asleep in one of the beds.  He was undressed down to his boxer-shorts.  He was wakened by D. Garda Sheeran who recognised him as being Paul "Hippo" Ward.  The former gave evidence that he arrested the accused under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 for possession of a firearm at S.D.S., Naas Road on 2nd October, 1996.  The bedroom and bathroom en-suite were searched.  The accused was told to dress and was handcuffed by Garda Doolan.  The three gardai brought him to the lobby and then out of the building.  He was conveyed handcuffed to Ronanstown garda station by the two uniformed gardai in the jeep in which they had been on patrol when summoned to the hotel.  On arrival at the garda station the usual formalities were conducted by Garda Fitzgerald, the member in charge.  The accused was then put in a cell.  D. Garda Sheeran stated in evidence that he arrested the accused in connection with the S.D.S. robbery because he had been told by an informer that "Hippo" Ward was involved in that crime.  The accused is known to his acquaintances as "Hippo".  However, his three brothers have also the same nickname.  After the accused was put in a cell for the night, D. Garda Sheeran left the station as he alleges that he had an appointment with the same informer from whom he had received information about the S.D.S. robbery.  He stated that he told the latter about arresting the accused, Paul Ward, but was informed that he had the wrong "Hippo".  He did not enquire which of the Ward brothers his informant believed had been involved in that particular crime.  Garda Sheeran thereupon returned to Ronanstown garda station and arranged with Srgt. Feeney, then the member-in-charge, to release the accused.  This was duly done.  No information was given to or sought by Srgt. Feeney as to how the mistaken arrest had come to be made or why the accused should be released.  Furthermore, Garda Sheeran conceded that he had not reported the arrest to any superior or to the officers in Clondalkin garda station who had responsibility for investigating the S.D.S. robbery on 2nd October.
	The accused's version of events at the Green Isle hotel differs in two important respects from the prosecution case.  He stated in evidence that having been roughly awakened by D. Garda Sheeran, he was informed by the latter that he was arresting him "for firearms at the Naas Road in June '96" under Section 30 of the 1939 Act.  He also stated that one of the uniformed gardai in the bedroom was armed.  He stated that he saw subsequently at Ronanstown garda station that police officer put the gun in a tin box on the wall of the public office.
	The accused's explanation for his presence in the hotel was that he had been concerned about the safety of his brother, Seamus, who was on the run from the police and he had arranged with the latter that he would conceal him for the night by taking a room under a false name in the Green Isle hotel.  He could not explain why his brother wandered about the premises leaving fire doors open, nor did he know at the time why Seamus had left the hotel or even that he had left the bedroom.  He alleged that that had happened after he, the accused, had gone to bed and asleep for the night.  He alleges that he had no knowledge that Seamus had any intention of leaving the room that night.  He further alleged that he learned subsequently that the reason why his brother, Seamus, had left the hotel was to see his wife.  If that were true it defeated the alleged purpose of going to the hotel and taking a room there and it exposed Seamus Ward to the risk of arrest by the police which it is alleged he was anxious to avoid.
	The court rejects the accused's explanation for his presence at the hotel and also the account he has given of his arrest there.  Furthermore, it rejects his allegation that one of the uniformed gardai was armed and produced a gun in the hotel bedroom.  The court is satisfied that Garda Sheeran was the only officer to produce a gun.
	The court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that D. Garda Sheeran arrested the accused under Section 30 of the 1939 Act on foot of his bona fide belief at the time of arrest that the latter had been involved in the S.D.S. robbery on 2nd October.  D. Garda Sheeran could not have been aware when he arrived at the Green Isle hotel that he was about to encounter the accused there.  We are satisfied that he had had only a peripheral involvement in the Veronica Guerin murder investigation for the first few days thereof and was not a member of the investigating team at Lucan.  It is not credible that he would have arrested the accused in connection with the Guerin crime without first obtaining instructions from a senior member of the investigating team at the nerve centre in Lucan garda station.  It is clear beyond doubt that having found the accused asleep in the bedroom he promptly arrested him without seeking instructions or advice from anyone.  D. Garda Sheeran's evidence was corroborated by Gardai Doolan and Egan.  The court was impressed by the testimony of these young officers and accepts the veracity of their evidence.  There is nothing to suggest that with D. Garda Sheeran they and other officers at Ronanstown garda station are part of a conspiracy to deceive the court as to the true nature of the arrest made by Garda Sheeran and the accused's subsequent release.  
	In reviewing the Green Isle hotel arrest the function of the court is to consider the relevant evidence and to decide whether or not it accepts that D. Garda Sheeran had at that time a bona fide suspicion that the accused had been involved in the S.D.S. robbery on 2nd October and that his decision to arrest the accused was so based.  The reason why the accused was subsequently released from arrest is not relevant to that determination.
		As to the accused's allegation that one of the uniformed gardai was armed; the court accepts the evidence of Station Sergeant Feeney that uniformed gardai are not authorised to carry arms and that no arms had been issued to either of them that day.
	The second ground advanced on behalf of the accused, i.e., the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest by Inspector Kennedy on 16th October depends upon establishing the accused's contention as to his arrest by D. Garda Sheeran and, therefore, in the light of the court's finding in that regard, it does not arise.
	The third ground, i.e., the alleged failure of the gardai to accord to the accused his basic right to appropriate medication for purported substantial heroin withdrawal symptoms and to take proper steps to satisfy themselves that he was fit for interrogation at all material times.
	The accused in evidence stated that he was a drug addict but the gravity of his addiction was not indicated by him or otherwise dealt with in evidence.  He stated that when in garda custody he suffered withdrawal symptoms which he described as a runny nose (similar to having a cold in the head); getting hot or cold sweats and getting cramps or aches in the calves of the legs.  In regard to the problem with his nose; he contended in evidence that it was running while in custody.  The accused stated (and it is not in dispute) that soon after his arrival at Lucan garda station he asked to see a doctor.  He had two reasons for doing so.  First, to obtain physeptone which is a medication to combat drug withdrawal symptoms.  His second purpose was to be physically examined at the commencement of his detention for the purpose of establishing that he bore no signs of physical injury at that time.  At 5.15 p.m. on 16th October the accused was seen by Dr. Lionel Williams, a police doctor, who had been called to the station in response to the accused's request.  His meeting with Dr. Williams took place in the doctor's room at the station and lasted for six minutes.  Dr. Williams gave evidence in that regard.  He stated that the accused told him that he was a drug addict or a drug abuser and that he requested physeptone.  He also wished to be examined in connection with physical injury.  He stated that on examination the accused did not appear to be in withdrawals at that time and was not then in need of medication.  He also bore no sign of physical injury.  The doctor took the view that a dose of physeptone should be kept in reserve and given to the accused when he asked for it.  He was unable to express an opinion as to when that might be.  He stated that the accused's drug habit "did not appear to be very big".
	Dr. Williams was called back to Lucan garda station on 18th October and arrived there in the early afternoon.  His interview with Mr. Ward was very short at that time - about two minutes - the accused pointed to a red mark on the left side of his neck and said that he had been assaulted by a member of the Garda Siochana.  He did not request an examination.  The doctor saw a red mark which was clearly visible to him.  The accused also informed Dr. Williams that he had not been given the physeptone which he had left for him on 16th October until the previous night and then only after he had complained to his solicitor.  The doctor's impression of the accused at that time was that he did not appear to need physeptone but nonetheless he gave him there and then a dose comprising 40 mls which the accused drank in his presence.  He also asked the doctor at that time not to tell his mother that he was taking physeptone and he enquired also how his father was.  Dr. Williams was asked "Did you form any view as to whether he [the accused] was or was not fit for interview?" and he responded "He didn't appear to be unfit for interview to me".  [The Court is satisfied that the answer to question 484 recorded in the transcript at page 86 in Book 5 is incorrect.  Two members of the Court noted that what Dr. Williams said was that the accused seemed to be physically well.  The third member did not have any relevant note.]
	The following passage occurs in Inspector Kennedy's evidence:-

	"Q456.
	A:		No, My Lord, I did not because unfortunately Mr. Ward at that time, I believed, was a drug addict and I did not wish to seize the tissue for reasons, purely hygiene reasons, I did not seize it but I felt that if I brought the matter to the [attention of the] member-in-charge that would be adequate.

	Q457		It was your belief at the time that Mr. Ward was a drug addict?
	A:		He had the appearances of being a drug addict, My Lord, yes."

	Garda Catherine Moore, one of the gardai detailed to supervise the prisoner during his custody, having referred to the first interview between the accused and Dr. Williams on 16th October went on to state that the doctor gave her a small container of physeptone and told her "to administer it to the prisoner, Paul Ward, when it was necessary, when he required it, when requested.  I kept the container in my possession......"  When asked by the Court to repeat the instructions she received about the medication she answered "The instruction from Dr. Williams was that I was to give it to Paul Ward when he requested it, whenever he required it, whenever he requested it from me and I kept it in my possession".  She further stated that at 9.10 p.m. on 16th October when she returned the accused to his cell he asked her for the physeptone and she gave it to him.  The Court accepts beyond reasonable doubt the foregoing evidence given by Dr. Williams and Garda Moore.  
	The Court adopts with approval the principle of law laid down by the Court of Appeal in England in Kenneth Crampton, (1991) 92 C.A.R. 369 in the judgment of the court delivered by Stuart-Smith L.J. at pp. 373/4:-
	"In our judgment, the position is this.  Whether or not someone who is an addict is fit to be interviewed, in the sense that his answers can be relied upon as being truthful, is a matter for judgment of those present at the time.  It is interesting to observe that a note in the Code of Practice says on this point..... 

		'It is important to remember that a person who appears to be drunk or behaving abnormally may be suffering from illness or the effect of drugs or may have sustained injury (particularly head injury) which is not apparent, and that someone needing or addicted to certain drugs may experience harmful effects within a short time of being deprived of their supply.  Police should therefore always call the police surgeon when in any doubt, and act with all due speed.'

	That of course is concerned mainly with the condition of the defendant in the police station and the need to call a doctor in the event that the police are in doubt as to whether or not he is well.  Nevertheless, it has relevance, in our judgment in relation to the question of interview.  The position here, as it seems to us, is this.  If the police had summoned the doctor, Dr. Koppell, and he had seen the appellant before the interview, the doctor would have certified that he was fit to be interviewed.  That is the evidence that he effectively gave and the evidence that the judge accepted.  It is then for the judge at the trial within the trial to decide whether the assessment of those present at the time was correct.  The mere fact that someone is withdrawing, and may have a motive for making a confession does not mean the confession is necessarily unreliable.....".

	In course of his detention, the accused was interrogated by a total of twelve different gardai all of whom are experienced police officers.  Their evidence is that the accused was fit for interview at all material times.  He did not complain to them or to the jailer gardai or members-in-charge about withdrawal symptoms or any other condition which might be relevant to his capacity for interview.  He was seen by the custodial officers at frequent intervals during his detention, both in his cell and in course of interrogation.  He made no complaints to them and from time to time intimated that he was "o.k.".  The police evidence is that he sought physeptone once, i.e., at 9.10 p.m. on 16t October from Garda Moore and was given it by her at that time.  In the light of the foregoing garda evidence and that of Dr. Williams, the Court is satisfied that the accused was fit for interrogation at all material times while at Lucan station and that he was not deprived of his right to necessary medication or medical attention.  The Court in reaching its conclusion in that regard has borne in mind, inter alia, the performance of the accused at the Green Isle hotel on 7th October.  On his own evidence, which is corroborated by hotel staff, he was the prime mover in booking and paying for a double room for his elder brother, Seamus, and himself using a false name and address.  He said in evidence that he took that course in order to protect his brother who was then on the run from the police.  A capacity to take that sort of initiative indicates clearly that the person in question had his wits about him and a full range of mental capacity at a time which was only eight days before his detention at Lucan.  This strengthens the opinion expressed by Dr. Williams.  The Court is also satisfied that if at any time during his detention at Lucan garda station he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms such as those he described in evidence they would have been readily observable by the interrogating and jailer officers and members-in-charge.  In particular, a running nose would have been obvious.  The Court is not satisfied that he displayed any such symptoms.
	The fourth ground - alleged assault by D. Sergeant Condon and D. Garda Maher. 
	The accused stated in evidence that in the early hours of 18th October he was lying in his cell with his head covered by a blanket when he alleges D. Sergeant Condon stepped inside the door and told him that he (Condon) had been brought up from Cork just to see him and that he would be seeing him first thing in the morning.  The accused went on to state that his first interview on the following morning was by D. Sergeant Condon and Garda Maher.  He sat at a table in the interview room.  Sergeant Condon was standing but appeared to have adopted "a civilised attitude".  The accused was asked questions to which he made no reply.  About five minutes after the interview had commenced, Sergeant Condon "all of a sudden gave me a smack across the left hand side of my face".  The accused contended that he was seated with his hands in his pockets at the time.  He jumped up.  Sergeant Condon put his arm tightly around the accused's neck so that he was unable to breathe.  The other officer also participated in the attack.  The assault then concluded and the accused was allowed to sit down again at the table.  He stated that the interview continued thereafter for fifteen or twenty minutes.  
	The member-in-charge of the station at the time of the alleged cell visit was Sergeant Farren.  He stated in evidence that he had custody of the cell key which he had in his possession at all times.  If he had issued the key to anyone he would have recorded it in the custody record.  His evidence is borne out by Garda Maria Keogh, a jailer officer, she was on duty at the material time and had the cell door in view.  She would have known if anyone had entered it and she confirmed that no-one did so.  The Court accepts her evidence and that of Sergeant Farren in corroboration of Sergeant Condon and is satisfied that he did not enter the accused's cell at any time on the night in question.  The Court also rejects the accused's account of the alleged assault and is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that no such event took place.  The Court does not doubt the veracity of the evidence given by Sergeant Condon and Garda Maher.
	The Court is also satisfied that the sequence and durations of interrogation sessions on 18th October were as recorded in the custody record and not as alleged by the accused.  
	The fifth ground on which the application now before the Court was made is a late entrant to the debate which, as previously stated, was not raised originally but emerged in course of the voir dire.  It raises the concept of possible oppressive behaviour on the part of the police in connection with the interrogation of the accused which it is submitted requires an explanation in evidence which has not been forthcoming.  It arises in novel circumstances outside the run of oppressive behaviour by police interrogators as found in the authorities which normally relate to alleged direct oppressive behaviour by police in course of interrogation of a suspect - such as physical abuse, threats, inducements and unreasonably long periods of interrogation without sufficient rest and/or refreshment.  The circumstances relied upon by the defence in the instant case concern visits made to the accused by his girlfriend, Ms. Vanessa Meehan, and subsequently by his 74 year old mother while he was in custody at Lucan garda station.  There is no evidence the accused sought either visit and the Court is satisfied that they are likely to have been arranged and orchestrated by the police.  No explanation has been given by the prosecution as to how, why and for what purpose the visits were arranged.  It is evident that they might have an innocent explanation or they may have been a vehicle for unfair oppression of the accused amounting to a conscious and deliberate violation of his right to fair procedures.  For example, either or both of the women might have been prevailed upon by the police in course of their own interrogation while in custody at the time of the visits to exercise influence over the accused to take a course of action helpful to the prosecution of the case against him.  It is submitted on behalf of the accused that without an innocent explanation given in evidence led by the prosecution, the Court cannot decide whether or not such visits or either of them amounted to oppression.  In support of that contention the Court was informed that in fact soon after each of the visits certain verbal statements, the contents of which have not been opened to the Court, are alleged by the prosecution to have been made by the accused in course of subsequent interrogation which it is contend by the State amount to admissions of his connection with the offence charged, though such alleged admissions are denied by the accused.  It is further submitted that pursuant to its obligation to satisfy the Court on the voir dire that the accused's interrogation was lawful and that at all times he was accorded the benefit of fair procedures, it must be established by the prosecution in evidence that the visits of the women to the accused were innocent and did not have unlawful motivation.  As no such evidence has been adduced, it is contended that the Court must exclude evidence derived from all interrogations of the accused which took place after the visit to him by Ms. Meehan on 17th October.
	The law in this difficult area is set out in the following passage from the judgment of Griffin J., being the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in Shaw -v- The People (Director of Public Prosecutions), [1982] I.R. 1:-

	"...... Even if a statement is held to have been voluntarily obtained in the sense indicated, it may nevertheless be inadmissible for another reason.  Because our system of law is accusatorial and not inquisitorial, and because (as has been stated in a number of decisions of this Court) our Constitution postulates the observance of basic or fundamental fairness of procedures, the judge presiding at a criminal trial should be astute to see that, although a statement may be technically voluntary, it should nevertheless be excluded if, by reason of the manner or of the circumstances in which it was obtained, it falls below the required standards of fairness.  The reason for exclusion here is not so much the risk of an erroneous conviction as the recognition that the minimum of essential standards must be observed in the administration of justice.  Whether the objection to the statement be on constitutional or other grounds, the crucial test is whether it was obtained in compliance with basic or fundamental fairness, that the trial judge will have a discretion to exclude it 'where it appears to him that public policy, based on a balancing of public interests, requires such exclusion' - per Kingsmill-Moore J. at p. 161 of the report of O'Brien's case."

The People -v- O'Brien & Anor., [1965] I.R. 142.  See also the judgment of Finlay P., as he then was, in The People -v- McNally and The People -v- Breathnach, Fruen Vol. 11 at 54 et seq.
	The Court is satisfied that if the visits of Ms. Meehan and Mrs. Ward or either of them to the accused were motivated by an attempt on the part of the police to oppress the accused through pressure from people close to him, whether successful or not, it should exclude all subsequent alleged admissions made by the accused.  It would be fundamentally wrong and a denial of justice to allow the prosecution any advantage which could have emanated from such wrongdoing on the part of the police.
	In resolving this issue the Court takes into account conclusions which should be drawn from surrounding circumstances.  In that regard it takes cognisance of the following facts:-

1.	That, as already indicated, this issue was not raised as a ground for the present application prior to the commencement of the voir dire or at any time during the prosecution case on the issue.  In fact it was not fully presented until the closing address of counsel for the accused.
2.	Ms. Meehan was not called in evidence and Mrs. Ward did not make any allegations in her testimony indicative of wrongful motivation by the police regarding her visit to the accused.  It seems that the purpose of calling her as a witness for the defence was to seek to make the case that her arrest and detention was unfair and also to provide evidence that the accused had an apparent injury on the side of his neck when she saw him - a fact already established by Dr. Williams in evidence.
3.	The accused in course of his evidence also did not say anything indicative of pressure exerted on him by his mother or Ms. Meehan at either meeting.  He was silent as to what transpired between him and the women.  
4.	Finally, and most important of all, the accused's legal advisors have been aware for many months of the meetings in question.  The Court has no doubt that the circumstances of them would have been investigated fully with the accused, Ms. Meehan and Mrs. Ward.  If it emerged that there was any evidence suggesting that the meetings or either of them might have been indicative of improper behaviour or motivation on the part of the police then that would have become an important plank in the accused's defence and would have been ventilated in evidence including cross-examination of relevant garda officers.

	In the light of the foregoing assessment is there a reasonable possibility that the visits of Ms. Meehan and Mrs. Ward to the accused or either visit were orchestrated by the police as a stratagem to oppress the accused and cause him to take a course of action favourable to the prosecution case against him?  That is the essence of the issue.  The Court is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that no such possibility exists.  Accordingly, that ground also has not been established.
	The Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the legality of the accused's arrest by Inspector Kennedy on 16th October, 1996 and of his subsequent detention and interrogation at Lucan garda station.