THE SPECIAL CRIMINAL COURT

Barr J.
Smyth J.
Ballagh J.

THE PEOPLE 
-v-
PAUL WARD

Judgment of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Barr on the 27th day of November, 1998.

	On 26th June, 1996 Ms. Veronica Guerin, a distinguished brave journalist who specialised in the investigation of crime, was brutally murdered when riddled with bullets as she sat in her car waiting for traffic lights to change at the Naas road, Boot road junction, Clondalkin, Dublin.  Eyewitnesses have established that as the victim waited at the lights a motorcycle on which there were two persons drew up alongside her.  The rider and the pillion passenger both wore full size helmets which concealed their faces.  The pillion passenger broke a window in the driver's door and then fired six bullets at point blank range into the car.  All struck the victim and caused fatal injuries from which it is probable that she died within seconds.  Thereupon the motorcycle sped away and disappeared.  The accused has been charged with the murder of Ms. Guerin.  The prosecution does not contend that he was the gunman or the motorcyclist or that he was present at the scene of the crime.  The case against him is that he participated in the planning of the murder and that pursuant to such plans he played an important role in the crime by receiving from the killers very soon after the event the motorcycle and the gun which they had used and he disposed of both thereafter.  The evidence against the accused comprises verbal admissions allegedly made by him while in police custody following his arrest under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 on 16th October, 1996 and the testimony of Charles Bowden, an accomplice, whose evidence purports to establish that the accused was an accessory before the fact of Ms. Guerin's murder.

THE VERBAL ADMISSIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ACCUSED

	The accused was arrested at 3.30 p.m. on 16th October, 1996 at Windmill Park, Crumlin, by Inspector (then Sergeant) Padraig Kennedy and he was brought to Lucan garda station which was the headquarters of the Guerin murder investigation, one of the biggest ever mounted by the Garda Siochana.  The accused is an experienced Section 30 detainee having been arrested on that basis on earlier occasions and he stated in evidence that he was well aware of the importance in his own interest of adopting a policy of total silence in course of interrogation and he alleged that he did so.  He took two precautions on arrival at the station.  He asked to see his solicitor and also a doctor.  Shortly afterwards he had a consultation with his solicitor, Mr. Hanahoe, who advised him of his right to silence and not to answer any questions.  Dr. Lionel Williams, a police doctor, examined him.  The accused has stated that he had two reasons for asking for a doctor.  First, he wished to be medically examined so that there would be, if necessary, professional evidence to establish that at the time of examination he bore no signs of physical injury.  He deposed that the second reason  was that he then and had been for some time a heroin abuser and he required a medication called physeptone to counter the symptoms of his alleged addiction.  Dr. Williams did not regard him as being then in withdrawal but provided a single dose of physeptone to the police for the benefit of the accused should he require it.  There is some controversy as to when and in what circumstances he received the medication.  
	The accused was interviewed by D. Sergeant Kennedy and D. Garda Curran from 4.10 to 4.25 p.m. on the day of arrest (16th October).  The next interview was from 7.15 p.m. to 9.10 p.m. conducted by D. Sergeant Healy and D. Garda Clancy.  The third and final interview that day was by D. Gardai Byrne and Hanley from 9.55 p.m. to 11.45 p.m.
	On the following day the first interrogation session was with D. Gardai Dillon and O'Shea from 8.20 a.m. until 12.15 p.m., D. Sergeant Lynagh having replaced D. Garda O'Shea at 11.30 a.m.  The next session was with D. Gardai Hanley and O'Shea and it commenced at 2.25 p.m.  It was interrupted by a visit from Mr. Hanahoe from 3.00 to 3.10 p.m. and for the reading of the Extension Order by the station sergeant at 3.20 p.m.  There was also a short visit by D. Sergeant Ennis of the Ballistics Section.  The accused was returned to his cell from the interview room at 5.55 p.m.  The next session was conducted by D. Sergeant Lynagh and D. Garda Dillon.  It commenced at 7.35 p.m. and was interrupted by a meeting between the accused and his partner, Ms. Vanessa Meehan, which took place in a different interview room.  The visit was supervised by D. Garda Hanley and lasted until 10.35 p.m. when the accused was returned to the original interview room where the interrogation by D. Sergeant Lynagh and D. Garda Dillon continued until 11.25 p.m. when the accused was returned to his cell for the night.  There is controversy about an alleged nocturnal visit by D. Garda Condon to the cell that night and it ultimately emerged in evidence and the court accepts that a noisy tattooed drunk was detained in the accused's cell for about 50 minutes in the early hours of the morning.
	It is common case that until the accused's meeting with Ms. Meehan the position was that in course of five sessions comprising a total of 14½ hours of intense interrogation by a series of experienced police officers, the accused firmly maintained his policy of silence.  On the premise that the evidence of Sergeant Lynagh and Garda Dillon is truthful, a profound change took place after that visit and admissions were made by the accused amounting to a confession of participation in the murder of Ms. Guerin.  It is alleged that the following admissions were made by the accused when his interrogation was continued by Sergeant Lynagh and Garda Dillon from 10.35 p.m.  The interviewers contend that Garda Dillon recorded at the time the following questions and answers made thereto by the accused:-

	"Prisoner visited girlfriend, Vanessa, at 10.25 p.m.  Prisoner returned to Interview Room at 10.35 p.m.

	Q.	What did Vanessa say to you?
	A.	She knows nothing, she wasn't in the house that day.
	Q.	What day?
	A.	The day the Guerin one was shot.  She wasn't in the house.  She knows nothing about it.
	Q.	What happened at your house after the shooting?
	A.	Meehan and Holland called.
	Q.	Why did they call to your house?
	A.	You'se know why they called.
	Q.	Tell us why?
	A.	We had it planned after the job was done on Guerin they would come back to my place, I was to get rid of the gear.  
	Q.	What do you mean by gear?
	A.	The gun and the bike, I got rid of them.
	Q.	Where are they now.
	A.	No response.
	Q.	Is it hidden where someone else will find it?  You know someone else might get shot?
	A.	No response."

	A number of other questions are recorded as having been asked and in each case it is noted that there was no response.
	This poses two alternative possibilities.  If the alleged admissions were made then, they constituted a huge breakthrough in the Guerin investigation.  What was said clearly amounted to admissions by the accused that he was guilty of being an accessory before the fact of murder and thus in law would be as guilty as the actual participators, i.e., the gunman and the motorcyclist.  The accused was the first person, other than Charles Bowden, to confess to participation in the murder of Ms. Guerin.  The police were under severe pressure to bring charges in regard to that crime.  The coincidence that the accused's capitulation after more than 14 hours of silence during interrogations had occurred immediately after the visit by Ms. Meehan is a remarkable volte face which gives rise to unease and raises a series of pertinent questions.  Why did that visit take place?  What was it's real motivation?  What transpired between the accused and his partner on that occasion?  What was Ms. Meehan's state of mind at the time? Was she pressurised by the police in any way to attempt to break down the accused's resolve to maintain silence and to persuade him to make admissions about his involvement in the crime?  In reality was the visit a deliberate ploy devised by the police to soften up the accused and cause him to incriminate himself as to the murder?  
	Ms. Meehan was arrested under Section 30 of the 1939 Act at 6.55 p.m. on 16th October and was detained at Ballyfermot garda station where she was interviewed by D/Sergeant Kennedy.  She made a written statement to the effect that she was at home with the accused on the day of the murder until late afternoon when she went to her mother's house.  She described that the accused's niece, Natasha Madden, was also staying in the house at the time.  The latter had been brought there on the previous day suffering from grievous heroin addiction.  She explained in evidence that the accused had agreed to take Natasha in and look after her.  This included providing physeptone which was obtained and administered to her by the accused.  Her statement is silent on whether there were any visitors to the house that day but in her evidence she denied that anyone had called.  The accused's testimony had been to the same effect.  She said that in course of interrogations police officers had shouted at her and threatened to have her charged as an accessory to murder.  They did not believe that she was in the house on the day of the murder at the relevant time when they contended that the motorcycle and gun were delivered to the accused.  However, she did not change her statement at that time though she alleged that she was crying and very distressed during her stay at Ballyfermot station.  She did not ask to visit the accused.  Nonetheless, on the evening of 17th October she was brought to Lucan station where she arrived at 8.40 p.m.  Shortly afterwards she was taken to an interview room where she was interrogated by D. Gardai O'Shea and Hanley from 8.50 to 10.07 p.m.  She described her situation at that time as being very upset and frightened and she was crying a lot.  The interrogators referred to her earlier statement about being in the house at the material time on 26th June and she was again threatened with being charged as an accessory to murder.  She was told that the charge sheet was being prepared and the charge would proceed if she did not change her statement by saying that she left the house earlier in the morning.  Ms. Meehan was asked by Mr. MacEntee about the circumstances of her encounter with the accused at Lucan garda station.  The following passage is recorded in Volume 26 of the transcript of evidence at pp 25/6:-

	"A.	Well the detectives were saying to me we are going to bring you in to see Paul now and you ask him where the gun is, because if you ask him that, we will let you go home and we will let Paul go home if Paul tells us where the gun is.  So they brought me into a room. 
	Q.	..... Did you ask to see Paul?
	A.	No.
	Q.	And did you believe that if you were to get Paul to divulge where they maintained the gun was that he would be let home?
	A.	I was just, I was more concerned about myself to be honest.  I just wanted to get out of the police station and they said if I did this and if I asked him, that they would let me go and they would let Paul go, but I wasn't really too concerned about Paul at that stage to be honest.
	Q.	Yes.  So tell their Lordships what happened then.
	A.	So they brought me into a room.
	Q.	From where?
	A.	From where they were after being interviewing me, they brought me to a different room.
	Q.	From another room where they had been interviewing you?
	A.	Yes.  I was sitting at the edge of a table, and out in the hallway I could hear a commotion and I could - the door was open and I could just see the corner of Paul's you know his shoulder and they were as far as I remember they were screaming at him to go into the room and Paul wasn't coming into the room.
	Q.	Did you hear Paul say anything at that stage?
	A.	I couldn't clearly hear what they were saying and I was crying and I called out to Paul.
	Q.	What did you call out?
	A.	Just to come in.
	Q.	Did he come in?
	A.	Yes.
	Q.	What happened?
	A.	I was, I was very upset and I was asking him just to, I asked him to tell them where the gun was so that I could go home and he was saying like he had nothing got to do with it and he was saying, you know I haven't anything to do with it and I was just saying well, they just said if I asked you they would let me go home and then Paul asked me what time I was after being arrested at and I told him and he said that he was after being arrested earlier than me, so he said I will be out before you and he said I will be out before you and I will collect you.
	Q.	What happened then?
	A.	They took Paul back out of the room then and I can't remember whether I was put into a cell straight after it or whether they questioned me, I am not too sure, but I said it to him, I said they asked me what did Paul say.
	Q.	Were there guards present when you talked to Paul?
	A.	No.
	Q.	Yes.
	A.	And they asked me what did Paul say so I said I am after asking him and he has nothing got to do with it and I said can I go now because I am after doing what you asked me to.  They just started laughing.
	Q.	When	you went in to see Paul or when Paul was brought in to see you in that room, did you at that stage know that the guards, what the guards were saying about their allegations about Paul's involvement in the matter?
	A.	Yes, they had been saying it throughout the day.
	Q.	What had they been saying?
	A.	They were saying that he had got rid of the gun and the motorbike as well."

	In course of her interrogation by Gardai Hanley and O'Shea prior to her meeting with the accused she said that they concentrated on her partner's involvement with the gun and said that he was going to go down for 20 years.  They also kept insisting that Shay Ward had been in the house that day which she denied.  Eventually she was prevailed on to make a new written statement in which under severe pressure she agreed to change what she had said originally and to concede that she had left the house in the morning and was not present at the material time on 26th June.  She said that she signed a statement to that effect.
	Garda (now Sergeant) Hanley and Inspector Kennedy were unable to provide any credible explanation as to why it was deemed necessary and appropriate to interrogate Ms. Meehan for an hour and a quarter just before her meeting with the accused.  There was also no tenable explanation as to why the meeting had taken place and why Ms. Meehan was kept in a cell at Lucan garda station that night instead of being returned to Ballyfermot station.
	The history of the accused's interrogation on 18th October as conceded by the relevant police witnesses is very remarkable indeed.  Notwithstanding the accused's alleged positive verbal admission after the Vanessa meeting that he was an accessory before the fact to the murder of Ms. Guerin, the first two teams of interrogators who questioned the accused for a total of almost two hours between them on that morning were not aware of what the accused is alleged to have admitted to Sergeant Lynagh and Garda Dillon on the previous night and had no knowledge of the crucial memorandum which had been made in that regard.  This indicates either incredible disorganisation in the murder investigation despite the fact that there was a continuously manned Incident Room at Lucan station, or there was no memorandum of the Lynagh/Dillon interview at that time and it came into existence later.  That possibility would explain another problem which has not been fully addressed by the prosecution.  The accused requested a visit from Dr. Williams which took place at 2.44 p.m. on that day.  The latter gave evidence that he saw an obvious red mark by way of injury on the accused's neck at that time.  It was not there when the doctor originally examined the accused.  The explanation given by the latter is that it was caused by Sergeant Condon in course of the first interview that day which is referred to in the ruling by the court on the voire dire.  Sergeant Condon denies the accused's allegations against him but no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution about how the mark on the accused's neck came to be there.  In particular, it was not suggested in cross-examination that it had been self-inflicted.  If the prosecution case is correct there would be no possible reason for an assault on the accused after he had made a positive confession of guilt on the previous night.  An assault by Sergeant Condon is, however, consistent with the accused's contention that he maintained silence and admitted nothing during the period of his detention.  Was Sergeant Condon responsible for an attempted physical softening up of the accused because the Vanessa Meehan stratagem had failed?  
	D. Sergeant Hanley commenced an interview with the accused at 10.50 a.m. and he was joined five minutes later by D. Garda O'Shea.  They appear to have been the first interviewing officers that day who were aware of the alleged crucial admissions made by the accused on the previous night.  He was cautioned and early in the interview the accused asked if Vanessa was still in custody and added that she knew nothing and asked Sergeant Hanley to let her go.  When Garda O'Shea arrived he said "You have started to tell the truth, tell us all you know about it".  The accused then repeated admissions broadly similar to those he is recorded as having had made on the previous night.  In particular he is alleged to have said "My part was to let them use my house after the shooting, they came with the bike and the gun".  He is also alleged to have conceded that he had a scanner and that he heard the call going out about the shooting on the Naas road.  He knew then that the bike would be arriving.  It was put in his garage and he would not say anything else about it.  He did not respond to questions about the murder weapon.  It will be appreciated from the foregoing that there was some reference by D. Garda O'Shea to the admissions allegedly made by the accused on the previous night.  
	It is contented that similar admissions as to the accused's involvement were made by him to Detective Sergeant Healy and Detective Garda Clancy at an interview which commenced at 1.52 p.m. on 18th October.  On that occasion his explanation for agreeing to take charge of the motorcycle and the gun after the shooting was stated to be that he was a "junkie" and needed the money which had been promised to him for agreeing to perform that service when the murder was being planned by Meehan and Holland.  
	After that interview another very disquieting episode took place.  Mrs. Elizabeth Ward, a woman of 74 years of age, the accused's mother was also a detainee in garda custody at Cabra station consequent upon her arrest under Section 30.  The court is satisfied that she did not ask to see her son and that he did not ask to see her.  Nonetheless, she was brought to Lucan garda station where she arrived at 2.25 p.m. on 18th October which was an hour and five minutes before the time when the accused would have to be charged or released from custody.  The circumstances of her arrival at Lucan are most disturbing.  D/Gardai Paul Gilton and Tony Ryan were deputed by a senior officer to interview Mrs. Ward at Cabra station. When they arrived there at 2 p.m. they were asked to convey the detainee to Lucan for the purpose of visiting her son.  This request was made by D. Garda Mary Murphy, a junior officer, and they immediately did what they were asked without reference to their superior officer or any other person in authority.  Mrs. Ward described the journey in course of her evidence in the voire dire in graphic terms.  She was put into a police car and driven to Lucan at speed with siren blaring.  She was terrified and pleaded with the driver to slow down but he didn't do so.  The circumstances as described by Mrs. Ward were not seriously challenged in the evidence of the officers concerned.  It was also conceded that no steps were taken before the journey to ascertain whether it would be convenient to interrupt the interrogation of the accused for the purpose of a social visit from his mother or whether he was willing to accept such a visit.  On arrival at Lucan all formalities were dispensed with and Mrs. Ward's meeting with the accused took place within a minute or two of her arrival at the station.  The accused was distressed by his mother's visit because he was concerned about her and about his aged father who was in poor health and who also was in Section 30 detention at the time.  The interrogation session being carried out by D. Sergeant Healy and D. Garda Clancy was interrupted for the purpose of the meeting between mother and son which concluded at 2.43 p.m. having commenced at 2.27 p.m.  That visit was followed by a two minute meeting between Dr. Williams and the accused.  The Healy/Clancy interrogation was resumed immediately thereafter.  There was no caution at that time and the accused immediately complained that some gardai had told his mother that he was on gear, i.e., was taking serious drugs.  D. Sergeant Healy's response was to deny that he or Garda Clancy had spoken to Mrs. Ward and he said "Lets get back to where you hid the gun.  We want to find the gun so that nobody else will be killed with it?".  The accused replied that "Nobody will every be killed by the gun where it is now".  He was then asked "Where did the gun come from?".  And he replied "You know well where it came from, it was with the guns and ammunition you got in the graveyard".
	The court is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the visit from Mrs. Ward was a deliberate ploy devised and orchestrated by the police in a final effort to prevail on the accused to disclose what he had done with the gun.  It is obvious that if it had been possible to trace that weapon it might have yielded valuable forensic information which could have been helpful in establishing the guilt of others in addition to the accused.  The court is satisfied that the visit was not arranged for any humanitarian purpose but was a cynical ploy which it was hoped might break down the accused and cause him to make what was perceived to be a crucial admission regarding what had happened to the weapon.
	As to the visit from Ms. Vanessa Meehan to the accused; the court accepts her evidence that she was successfully subjected to grievous psychological pressure by D. Sergeant Hanley and perhaps other officers also to assist the police in breaking down the accused who up till then had maintained consistent silence over many interrogation sessions.  Both meetings amounted to a conscious and deliberate disregard of the accused's basic constitutional right to fair procedures and treatment while in custody.  They constituted deliberate gross violations of the fundamental obligation which the interrogators and their superiors had of conducting their dealings with the accused in accordance with principles of basic fairness and justice.  Another alarming feature relating to events during the period of the accused's detention at Lucan garda station is the extraordinary fact that a number of significant documents are now alleged to be unaccountably missing.  In all the circumstances the court is satisfied that in the interest of justice and fairness all admissions allegedly made by the accused during the period of his detention at Lucan garda station must be ruled inadmissible.  
	The court also has some element of doubt about whether the alleged verbal admissions were in fact made by the accused or whether, as he contends, he made no admissions at all during the entire period of his detention.  There is some evidence which might reasonably be regarded as supporting the accused's denial of having made any admissions.  Perhaps the most significant is the remarkable fact that the first two pairs of interrogators who interviewed the accused on 18th October were unaware of the fundamental breakthrough which is alleged to have occurred at the last interrogation session on the previous night when it is contended the accused in effect admitted to being an accessory before the fact of murder.  It is incredible that these officers were unaware of the accused's confession if it had been made.  The court would have expected that at the first opportunity after that late night admission the police would have been anxious to pursue the matter with the accused as soon as practicable with a view to obtaining further information from him.  The unexplained absence of documents might have some relevance in that regard.  The injury sustained by the accused while in custody is also supportive of the case which he has made.  The court is not making a finding that the verbal admissions were in fact planted by the police as alleged, but the evidence suggests such a possibility and the accused must be given the benefit of the element of doubt which exists.  Accordingly, the admissibility of the alleged verbal admissions are excluded on that ground also.
		In arriving at its decision to declare inadmissible the accused's alleged voluntary admissions to the police, the court has had regard to the statement of law as to the assessment of alleged voluntary admissions made by an accused person contained in the following passage from the Supreme Court judgment of Griffin J. in The People -v- Shaw, [1982] I.R. 1 at p. 60/61:-

	"The primary requirement is to show that the statement was voluntary, in the sense in which that adjective has been judicially construed in the decided cases.  Thus, if the tendered statement was coerced or otherwise induced or extracted without the true and free will of its maker, it will not be held to have been voluntarily made.  The circumstances which will make a statement inadmissible for lack of voluntariness are so varied that it would be impossible to enumerate or categorise them fully.  It is sufficient to say that the decided cases show that a statement will be excluded as being involuntary if it was wrung from its maker by physical or psychological pressures, by threats or promises made by persons in authority, by use of drugs, hypnosis, intoxicating drink, by prolonged interrogation or excessive questioning, or by any one of a diversity of methods which have in common the result or the risk that what is tendered as a voluntary statement is not the natural emanation of a rational intellect and free will......
	Secondly, 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 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 may be unconstitutional or on other grounds, the crucial test is whether it was obtained in compliance with basic or fundamental fairness, and 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, The People -v- O'Brien, [1965] I.R. 142...."

	The conduct of the police in devising and orchestrating the meetings between the accused and his partner, Ms. Meehan, and subsequently with his mother amounted to psychological pressures as envisaged by Griffin J. in Shaw's case.  Such pressures amounted to a deliberate denial of fundamental fairness in the interrogation of the accused.  It also raises the question of a balancing of public interests as envisaged by Kingsmill Moore J. in O'Brien's case and justice requires that all incriminating statements alleged to have been made by the accused to the police in course of his interrogation should be declared inadmissible as evidence at the trial.
	The court also has been mindful of the following passage in the judgment of Finlay C.J. for the Court of Criminal Appeal in The People -v- Buckley, delivered on 31st July, 1989 and reported in Frewen II p. 210 at pp. 212/3:-

	"The Court is satisfied that the cases to which reference has been made would appear to establish a principle that where an accused person makes a statement which is incriminatory in nature and has previously been induced to make a statement either by promise, threat or oppression, also incriminatory in nature, which is by that fact rendered inadmissible, that the Court must in respect of the latter statement, even though no immediate circumstances of oppression, threat or inducement surrounded it, have regard to the possibility that the threat or inducement remains so as to affect the free will of the party concerned and, therefore, the voluntary nature of the statement."

	The court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged admissions made by the accused in course of his interrogation by D. Sergeant Lynagh and D. Garda Dillon on the night of 17th October (if in fact made by him) were induced by grievous psychological pressure, which emanated from his meeting with Ms. Meehan immediately prior thereto, to such an extent that there was a real risk that the pressure remained and affected the free will of the accused to such a degree that it undermined the voluntary nature of subsequent alleged admissions made by him - if such were in fact made.
	There is one other matter which the court believes it is proper to comment upon.  It emerged in course of the evidence given by Mr. Spencer, the ballistics expert called on behalf of the accused, that he was accorded scant courtesy and there was lack of reasonable co-operation shown to him by D/Sergeant Ennis when he visited the Ballistics Section for the purpose of examining and carrying out appropriate tests on various exhibits there.  D. Sergeant Ennis stated in evidence that he had instructions to provide only minimum assistance to Mr. Spencer.  Whoever was churlish enough to issue those instructions did a great disservice to an admirable unit of the Garda Siochana and in particular to D. Sergeant Ennis whose outstanding service over many years has done so much to enhance the reputation of the Ballistics Section.  

CHARLES BOWDEN

	The second leg of the prosecution case against the accused is the evidence of Charles Bowden, an admitted accomplice in the murder of Ms. Guerin, who also implicates the accused as one of those who participated in the planning of the murder and who he alleges in accordance with that plan provided a crucial back-up service for the actual killers by taking charge of the motorcycle and the gun used in the crime at his home, 113 Walkinstown Road, soon after the event and subsequently disposed of both.  What may have been the motorcycle in question was later found broken up in the river Liffey, but the gun was never found and no information emerged at the trial as to what became of it.  There is no doubt that at all times the garda have been most anxious to trace the weapon.
	The first question the court must address in assessing the credibility of Bowden is his status in the case.  Is he no more and no less than a self-confessed accomplice in the murder of Ms. Guerin or is he one of a category of accomplices as found in certain terrorist trials in the Diplock courts of Northern Ireland known as a supergrass such as Henry Kirkpatrick in the last of such trials - see The Queen -v- Steenson & Ors., [1986] 17 N.I.B.J. 36.  Mr. McEntee contends that Bowden is in the same category as Kirkpatrick; that his evidence should be approached by the court with even greater reserve and suspicion than that of an ordinary accomplice and that for reasons similar to those advanced by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Lord Lowry, vis-à-vis Kirkpatrick in the Steenson case, Bowden's evidence should be rejected by the court as utterly unreliable.  
	Lord Lowry L.C.J. in the course of his judgment in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Steenson's case at page 45 quoted with approval the following passage from the judgment of Hutton L.J. in R. -v- Crumley, [1984] unreported, which was also a supergrass case:-

	"It is essential for a judge to warn a jury (and to remember, if he is the tribunal of fact) that it is dangerous to convict any accused on any count of an indictment on the evidence of an accomplice, if uncorroborated as to that accused and as to that count.  But a supergrass is no ordinary criminal and no ordinary accomplice.  Therefore, to the extent that what is known about the supergrass's character and situation increases the probability that he will be an unreliable witness, the danger of acting on his uncorroborated evidence is increased.  In this case, as in so many similar cases, we are confronted with a witness who by his own admission was a man of lawless character, a member of an unlawful organisation dedicated to violence and to the principle that the end justifies any means including indiscriminate murder and a person who had wholeheartedly engaged in all the activities of that organisation.  He is not just a cornered criminal, who is reluctantly disgorging information to save himself from enduring the penalty of perhaps one moderately serious crime, but he has volunteered a veritable mass of damning information against men whom he alleges to have been his confederates, to whom and with whom he is bound by an oath to further a joint cause which he no doubt regarded as patriotic.  His motive may be fear, despair or hope of an enormously improved life for the future, or a mixture of the three:  Wherever the truth lies, his motive is extremely powerful.  It is manifest that the evidence of such a witness must stand up successfully to the sternest criteria before it can be acceptable and become the sole basis for being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any accused is guilty of any offence charged against him."

	This court is satisfied that Charles Bowden is not a supergrass in the sense envisaged by Hutton L.J. but when admitting his own part in the Guerin murder and in implicating others in that crime, including the accused, he furnished information to the police as a cornered criminal to extricate himself in part at least from a grievous situation in which he found himself.  The court is deeply mindful of the fundamental principle of criminal law that it is unsafe to act upon the evidence of an accomplice which is not corroborated in some material particular implicating the accused.  This principle is laid down in the judgment of Kingsmill Moore J. for the Supreme Court in People -v- Casey No. II, [1963] 33 at p. 37.
	The law as to the ingredients required to sustain a conviction of a person accused as an accessory before the fact for aiding and abetting in the commission of a murder is laid down in the judgment of O'Higgins C.J. for the Court of Appeal in The People -v- Madden, [1977] I.R. 336 at 340/341 as follows:-

	"In the absence of evidence showing that any one of the accused actually took part in the shooting of Laurence White, the case made against each of them is that he aided and abetted in the killing of the deceased.  The killing of the deceased is described in the evidence which undoubtedly establishes that it was accomplished in a manner from which the mens rea required for the offence of murder may be inferred in relation to the persons by whom the killing was committed.  To  sustain a conviction of any one of the accused as an accessory before the fact for aiding and abetting in the commission of this crime, the prosecution must prove that the acts of aiding and abetting attributed to the accused were done in the knowledge of the intended commission, and assisted the commission, of the actions carrying the mens rea of the offence committed by the principal, that is to say, an unlawful killing such as is described in section 4, sub-section (1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1964.  It is not contested that the trial court correctly stated the principles of law in relation to the onus of proof on the part of the prosecution to establish the guilt of a person accused of aiding and abetting the commission of the offence charged.  The court had regard to the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in England in R. -v- Bainbridge, [1960] 1 Q.B. 129 in which Lord Parker C.J. quotes with approval the charge to a jury given by a trial judge in that case as set out at pp., 132 and 133 of the report.  The court had regard also to the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in England in National Coal Board -v- Gamble, [1959] 1 Q.B. 11 and, in particular to the statement of principle extracted from the judgment of Devlin J. at pp. 20 and 23 of that report.  The objection taken on the appeal is not that the trial court mis-stated the principles of law but that, in the application therefore, the court misdirected itself in relation to the evidence before it.
	In relation to a charge of aiding and abetting, it is clear from the cited judgments in Bainbridge's case and Gamble's case that motives and desires are irrelevant, and that mere evidence of common association is insufficient.  The kernel of the matter is the establishing of an activity on the part of the accused from which his intentions may be inferred and the effect of which is to assist the principal in the commission of the crime proved to have been committed by the principal, or the commission of a crime of a similar nature known to the accused to be the intention of the principal when assisting him.".

	There is no doubt that the killing of Ms. Guerin falls squarely within the definition of murder as stated in Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1964.  The court has also no hesitation in concluding that if it is established by admissible evidence that the accused participated in the planning of that crime and as part of that plan agreed to take responsibility for disposal of the motorcycle and/or gun used in the crime and in fact did so he is an accessory before the fact of the murder of Ms. Guerin.  
	The Court accepts without any doubt that Charles Bowden is a self-serving, deeply avaricious and potentially vicious criminal.  On his own admission he is a liar and the court readily accepts that he would lie without hesitation and regardless of the consequences for others if he perceived it to be in his own interest to do so.  The Court fully appreciates that assessment of his evidence must be made with great caution and with the foregoing firmly in mind.  
	After his arrest under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 on 5th October, 1996 Bowden was detained in custody for 48 hours and was repeatedly interrogated by Garda investigators.  Originally, he told them what he admitted in evidence at this trial was a tissue of lies.  Later, he started to tell what he now deposes is the truth about the crime and the background to it.  By degrees the whole story emerged in the course of his interrogation.  However, even after he embarked on his confession, he was inconsistent in what he said to various officers.  His explanation in that regard has an element of credibility.  He says that he trusted some officers such as Inspector O'Mahony and Detective Sergeant Hanley to whom most admissions were made and he distrusted others.
	However, the reason advanced by Bowden for his sudden decision to tell the truth about the murder and its background borders on the absurd and is totally rejected by the court.  He has stated in evidence that he was shown photographs by D. Sergeant McCartan of the victim lying on a dissecting table with bullet holes in her body.  He went on to say that later when alone he saw the same scene in his mind's eye but with his own wife's face substituted for that of the victim.  He contends that this caused him to be overcome with shame and remorse for having played any part in the crime and for that reason he decided to confess all.  The court is satisfied that Mr. Bowden is not the sort of man to have been overcome with grief or remorse about the killing of Ms. Guerin.  On the contrary, like other senior members of the Gilligan gang he had good reason to welcome her death, whoever her assassins may have been, bearing in mind that his leader, Gilligan, the lynch-pin in a major criminal business enterprise, faced a probable jail term on Ms. Guerin's account which was likely to cripple the business for the period of his enforced absence to the great detriment of all, including his lieutenant, Bowden.  The court accepts the evidence of Mr. Senan Moloney, Bowden's next-door neighbour, which to some extent was corroborated by the latter, that there was a raucous party in his house which lasted through most of the night of 26th/27th June, 1996.  It seems that there was no remorse but plenty of celebration at the Bowden home that night, though it is fair to add that Mr. Moloney also said that it was not a once off event but a frequent occurrence there.
	Mr. Bowden is an intelligent man.  The court is satisfied that the reason for his conversion to the alleged truth had nothing to do with remorse as he contends but is the product of a cold dispassionate assessment of his grievous situation at that time and amounted to a decision on his part to extricate himself as best he could from what he probably perceived to be the reality of his situation then.  The police had discovered, or were about to discover, that he had possession or control of very large sums of money which established his status as a major player in the marketing of huge quantities of cannabis.  The net was closing in.  His involvement as tenant of the premises at Harold's Cross used for storage and distribution of the cannabis and containing a large quantity of the product had emerged.  It was enough to make almost half a million cannabis cigarettes.  Worst of all, some other gang member might inform on him and tell the police about his involvement in cleaning and loading the murder weapon for use in the crime thus rendering him guilty of murder as an accessory before the fact.  The court is satisfied that Bowden was motivated by self interest in voluntarily admitting his own involvement and that of others in the murder of Ms. Guerin.  The conclusion is inescapable that he would have perceived himself as being at high risk of conviction for the murder of Ms. Guerin; that all his money would be lost and that after conviction his bargaining position might very well be reduced to zero.  He had every reason to seek to bail himself out of that dreadful situation as best he could and soon.  He did so.  He has agreed to turn state evidence in this and other related trials in return for a written undertaking from the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute him for the murder of Ms. Guerin.  He has also obtained modest prison sentences having pleaded guilty to major drugs and arms crimes.  He has secured special concessions while in prison and his wife and children have been given the benefit of the Witness Protection Programme.  Although not yet finally negotiated, it seems likely that when Bowden serves his sentences or earlier he will be released and set up with a new identity in a foreign country and some money in lieu of his substantial ill-gotten gains will be provided for him.  It seems that he has made what from his perspective appears to have been probably the best bargain he could hope to achieve from the State in all the circumstances.
	However, there is no doubt that Bowden would also appreciate that to achieve the foregoing advantages it would be in his best interest to tell the truth about all relevant details known to him relating to the murder and also the Gilligan criminal business enterprise.  He is clever enough to realise and he has been told in terms that the information he furnished would be thoroughly checked out.  He knows that if he is found to be lying as to any material fact much of the situation he has salvaged for himself and his family may be jeopardised.  The Court accepts that Bowden is fully aware that it is in his best interest to tell the truth about those involved in the murder and that he is likely to have done so unless on any issue crucial to the case against the accused, Paul Ward, it appeared to him, Bowden, that it was or might be in his interest to lie and wrongly implicate the accused.  If, in assessing the evidence, the Court has a reasonable doubt that that might be so then Bowden's evidence against the accused would be fatally flawed and would have to be rejected.  In the final analysis, that is the net issue in this case.
	The evidence given by Bowden about the Gilligan business enterprise, and the major part played by him and others, including the accused and Brian Meehan in it, has been corroborated and supported in its essentials by the accused in evidence.  It seems, therefore, that he, Bowden, has told the truth about these matters.
	Bowden has also made a full and frank confession about his involvement as the armourer for the gang and in particular the part he played in preparing and loading the gun used in the killing.  Although he made some attempt to distance himself from specific knowledge of an intention to kill on the part of Holland and Meehan, he conceded that he knew it was their intention to shoot Ms. Guerin.  That knowledge would imply that the victim was at risk of death or grievous personal injury from the attack which would be sufficient to establish his guilt as an accessory before the fact of murder.  That being so, it is essentially irrelevant to his already admitted guilt whether or not he was also involved in disposal of the gun after the crime.  
	It is suggested by Mr. McEntee that Bowden implicated the accused and in particular cast him in the role of disposer of the gun so as to avoid having to admit to being the person actually responsible for so doing.  As already pointed out, having admitted to his part in preparing and loading the gun, he had no incentive for not admitting to having disposed of it after the crime if that were the fact or the original intention of the planners.  On the contrary, that is a piece of information which the police would have welcomed - particularly if it were possible to retrieve the weapon and have it forensically examined.  There does not seem to be anything to suggest that falsely implicating the accused in the crime might have been of advantage to Bowden.  His evidence already implicated Gilligan, Holland and Meehan, who are those he alleges are primarily responsible for the murder.  There are also other senior members of the gang he did not seek to implicate directly in the death of Ms. Guerin, i.e. Shay Ward and Peter Mitchell.  There does not seem to be any tenable reason for singling the accused out as disposer of the gun and receiver of the motor cycle if that were untrue.  It is suggested by Mr. McEntee that as Bowden had professional knowledge of guns from his experience as a soldier, it is probable that at the planning stage he would have been made responsible not only for preparing and loading the gun but also for its disposal after the crime.  It is entirely credible that such an arrangement might have been made.  However, if it was made, a strong probability would be that Bowden by arrangement would have been in the accused's house at the time when Meehan and Holland arrived and that he would have taken possession of the gun there.  The shooter would have been anxious to get rid of it at the earliest possible opportunity and neither he or Meehan would have welcomed the idea of bringing it all the way to Bowden's hairdressing establishment in Moore Street with the attendant risk of being stopped and searched by the police as known drugs peddlers.  The court takes the view that it is not a credible possibility that Meehan would have walked from Aungier Street (where he was seen with Peter Mitchell and identified by members of the Drugs Squad at about 1.30 p.m. on the day of the murder) on through the inner city to Moore Street carrying the murder weapon, a bulky object which might have been mistaken for a consignment of cannabis by a vigilant policeman who would then arrest and search him.  Such conduct would amount to a ridiculously foolhardy risk which could readily have been avoided by arranging with Bowden to hand over the gun to him at the accused's house immediately after the killing if the planners had decided that he, Bowden, should be responsible for disposal of the weapon.  There are other credible reasons for Meehan's meeting with Bowden at Moore Street which appears to have taken place circa 1.40 p.m. on 26th June.  It may have been a drugs business encounter or an attempt by the former to set up an alibi. 
	The information furnished by Bowden to the police regarding the murder of Ms. Guerin and the background to that crime are in two closely related parts.  First, the background and motivation for the crime.  The details he furnished in that regard may be summarised as follows:-
	John Gilligan was the leader and linchpin of a huge cannabis importing and distribution business in Ireland which also appears to have extended outside the state.  Over a period in excess of two years up to June, 1996 over 100 metric tonnes of cannabis were imported into Ireland and subsequently distributed here and elsewhere.  The turnover of the business during that period appears to have amounted to many millions of pounds.  The cannabis arrived in one kilo blocks.  Gilligan had five senior line managers who were responsible for receiving large on-going consignments of the drug which were delivered to one or more of them at a hotel premises in county Kildare.  Each consignment was taken to a storage premises in Dublin which in May/June 1996 comprised a building in a commercial zone in Harold's Cross containing a few small industrial or manufacturing premises.  There the consignments were divided up into lots ready for delivery to customers of the enterprise in accordance with the size of the orders received.  The managers were Brian Meehan, Peter Mitchell, the accused, his brother Shay and Charles Bowden who had been introduced to the group and recruited by Peter Mitchell for whom he had previously worked as a dealer in ecstasy tablets.  Bowden's business acumen appears to have been recognised by the leadership.  One of his functions was to negotiate rental agreements in connection with the store at Harold's Cross and earlier premises which had been used as depots by the gang.  He also had a prominent role in preparing and distributing consignments of cannabis to wholesale customers mostly in large quantities on instructions from Meehan or Mitchell.  Shay Ward assisted him in that end of the business.  Meehan and Mitchell had responsibility for securing orders and arranging deliveries.  The accused's primary function was to collect money owing by many customers for supplies received.  According to his own evidence this was a more intricate operation than one would perceive at first sight.  The going rate charged by the Gilligan business was £2,150 per kilo of cannabis.  Wholesalers might place orders for upwards of £100,000 worth of the product.  It was the practice not to discharge the debt in one cash payment but to divide it into as many as four payments to reduce the risk of loss.  The accused described that all such payments would be made on behalf of the customer to him by arrangement in the course of the one day, usually in the car-park of a pub near his home.  The accused would meet a courier for the customer who would hand him a plastic supermarket bag occasionally containing as much as £20,000 in cash.  He would walk through the pub and out onto an adjacent street on the other side of the premises and then home to his house in Walkinstown Road.  He often would make numerous such collections in the course of a day.  At least once per week the cash collected by the managers was remitted to a courier for delivery to Gilligan.  The latter received £2,000 per kilo sold and the balance of £150 per kilo was divided up among the five managers in equal shares.  Their net earnings
were in the region of £150,000 per annum each and probably substantially more.  It was the practice of the management to hold a business meeting about once a week for the purpose of distributing their share of the profits.  Gilligan appears to have distanced himself from involvement in the distribution and marketing end of the business which he left in the hands of his five lieutenants.  There was no evidence as to what his net profit would have been.  It is reasonable to conclude that it was probably very substantial indeed.
	Another feature of the business was that certain consignments of cannabis contained a substantial quantity of guns and ammunition which the gang stored in two graves in a Jewish cemetery near Tallaght.  Covering slabs were removed; the arsenal was carefully stored in the graves underneath and the slabs were restored to their original positions.  Subsequently, the police recovered the following from the graveyard:-
	Five 9 mm Walther semi-automatic pistols with silencers; a 9 mm Sten sub-machine gun and silencer; a 9 mm machine pistol and a large quantity of assorted ammunition for such weapons which included dum-dum and semi wad-cutter bullets.  All were carefully stored in good condition and the witness appears to have had responsibility for so doing.
	Bowden informed the police that John Gilligan who was responsible for the importation of the cannabis also arranged for delivery of the guns and ammunition for use by the gang as and when required.  This he did by arrangement with Meehan.  The court takes cognisance of the fact that major drug importation and wholesaling is a vicious business and in recent years numerous murders in Dublin have been associated with it.
	As to motivation for the crimes; an incident had occurred between Ms. Guerin and Gilligan it seems in or about January, 1996 in which she had had an encounter with him and he had struck her.  She reported the matter to the police and Gilligan was charged with assault.  This enraged him because on imprisonment on foot of a likely jail sentence grave harm would be done to his cannabis empire because he would be prevented from purchasing supplies and arranging for the importation of the product into Ireland.  It is also probable that he perceived himself as being hugely important in the criminal world and it would be a source of great annoyance and humiliation to be sent to jail as a petty criminal.  It is also probable that his managers would have been also greatly annoyed by that turn of events.  The end result was that a plot was hatched to murder Ms. Guerin and thus the prosecution which she had initiated against Gilligan would have to be dropped as it was dependant on her evidence. 
	None of the foregoing information has been challenged by the accused and much of it was corroborated by him in course of his own evidence.  He was entirely frank about his personal involvement as one of the five line managers for Gilligan.  He also referred to a further piece of information which the court has found most illuminating in corroborating Bowden's evidence about the background to, motivation for and the orchestration of the crime by Gilligan.  In March 1996 a significant event took place at St. Lucia in the West Indies.  Brian and Vanessa Meehan's sister was married there.  This was a major social occasion for the Meehan family.  Among other guests, Brian Meehan attended; so did Vanessa Meehan with her partner, the accused, and most interestingly of all so did John Gilligan and his wife.  This event establishes the close connection between Gilligan and Brian Meehan who appears to have been his senior manager and first lieutenant in crime.  The accused was then close to the Meehan family, in particular Brian and Vanessa.  It is reasonable to conclude that John Gilligan would have accepted him also as a trusted lieutenant.  This is borne our by the fact that the accused appears to have been successful in having his brother, Shay, taken on as one of the five managers.  It is reasonable to assume that such an appointment would have required Gilligan's specific approval.  It also emerged from the accused's evidence that in course of the wedding celebrations John Gilligan expressed strong views about the assault charge brought by Ms. Guerin.  The accused deposed that Gilligan had expressed the view that he would not be convicted.  There was also some corroboration by Vanessa Meehan in that regard.
	The end result is that up to that advanced point in the narrative relating to the murder of Ms. Guerin, Charles Bowden appears to have been giving a truthful account of events which is substantially corroborated by or is unchallenged by the accused. 
	The remainder of Bowden's account concerns how he says the murder was planned and carried out.  There were two prime performers.  Brian Meehan who rode the motorcycle used in the event and Eugene Holland, a hired killer, who when riding pillion on Meehan's motorcycle shot Ms. Guerin at close range as she was stationary in her car just before 1.00 p.m. on 26th June, 1996.  The gun and bullets used were from the gang's arsenal in the cemetery.   Bowden has also sought to establish that there were two subsidiary players on the murder team, both of whom had participated in the planning of the crime.  He alleges that prior to its commission Meehan had arranged that he, Meehan, and the accused would be responsible for collecting the gun and ammunition from the grave and the accused agreed to accept the motorcycle and the gun at his house in Walkinstown immediately after the crime and that he would take responsibility for disposing of both of them.  The other person who Bowden named as an accessory before the fact of Ms. Guerin's murder was himself.  He admitted that he had an important function to play.  It was his responsibility to clean and load the gun thus ensuring that it would be effective in bringing about the death of Ms. Guerin.  The court takes cognisance of the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that he was obliged to make that admission.  He could have relegated himself to the same status as the other business managers, Shay Ward and Peter Mitchell, who are not directly implicated by him in the planning and execution of the crime.
	Is it likely that Bowden has given a truthful account of Brian Meehan's involvement in the murder?  The court is satisfied that his evidence in that regard has a strong ring of truth about it.  Bearing in mind the close connection between them and Meehan's status in Gilligan's enormous drugs business, he is the person who would have been most likely to have been recruited by Gilligan to arrange the murder and also to participate by providing the transport which was crucial to success.  The court has no doubt that Gilligan would have welcomed Meehan's presence as co-ordinator of the event to ensure that Holland performed his duty.  Is it likely that Bowden was truthful in naming Holland as the gunman?  Again, it is entirely credible that Gilligan would have arranged for the hiring of a professional killer to carry out the assassination.  He would not have wanted a botched job.  There is no evidence to suggest that any of his managers are professional killers but Holland has that reputation.  The crucial question then remains, was Bowden truthful in stating that the accused played a subsidiary part in the planning of the murder and in particular that prior thereto he adopted a crucial role as the person who would dispose of the motorcycle and the weapon used in the crime?  Here again it is useful to hark back to John Gilligan.  He is the ultimate brains behind his extensive drugs business.  There is every reason to believe that he orchestrated the killing of Ms. Guerin.  An important element in the transaction was immediate disposal of the motorcycle and gun.  He would have realised that that function required to be in safe hands.  Among his lieutenants the one who was closest to Brian Meehan through family ties was the accused.  A reasonable deduction from that relationship would be that the accused could be trusted to do the job.  His performance as a collector of vast sums of money for Gilligan in course of business would emphasise the wisdom of entrusting him with that important function.  The accused's house was also strategically placed and had the benefit of a discreet and secure garage.  All in all, Bowden's evidence about the accused's involvement in the crime also has a strong ring of truth about it.  
	We come then to the question which is at the root of this case, is there any basis on which the court might reasonably suspect that Bowden had an interest to lie about the accused and wrongly implicate him in the crime of murdering Ms. Guerin?  As already stated, if in assessment of the evidence the court has a reasonable doubt that that might be so then Bowden's evidence against the accused must be rejected.  The court can find nothing in the evidence which raises such a suspicion.  If in fact Bowden had disposed of the gun, or prior to the crime had been deputed so to do, then, as previously stated, the strong probability is that he would have collected it at the accused's house.  Furthermore, having admitted to preparing the gun for use in the killing, thus convicting himself of murder, it would have made no practical difference to admit to disposal of the weapon also if that were the case.  The court has carefully considered all of the evidence and can find nothing in it which might support a contention that Bowden had a motive of self-interest to implicate the accused in the crime.  The court also bears in mind that, apart from the gun, there was the question of disposal of the motorcycle.  There is not the slightest suggestion that Bowden or anyone else other than the accused had responsibility in that regard.  The court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Bowden's evidence implicating the accused in the crime is correct and ought to be accepted as truthful.
	Mr. McEntee has severely criticised Bowden's evidence in a number of respects and it is proper that, insofar as it has not already done so in this judgment, the Court should comment on these submissions.  
	Mr. McEntee referred to several alleged lies told by Bowden in evidence.  All but one are minor matters of no significance in the case per se.  The first relates to the witness's explanation for participating in Peter Mitchell's business relating to the distribution of ecstasy tablets.  He referred to being "strapped for cash" through being behind in the rent and other expenses.  In fact his employer provided him with accommodation for which he deducted the rent from wages.  However, Bowden did explain that his marriage had broken down and he had substantial expenses in that regard.  His reference to rent may not have been a lie in a conscious deliberate sense and could have been a casual inaccuracy.  The second illustration related to money which Bowden says he collected on a regular basis from a cannabis customer who lived nearby.  He indicated that that was the only account he collected, but it transpired that a few of Meehan's customers used to leave money occasionally at the hairdressing business for collection there.  The court does not consider that that amounted to a lie on the witness's part.  The only account which he had personal responsibility for collecting was that of the customer in Blanchardstown who lived near Bowden's home.  
	Mr. McEntee's main complaint relates to some confusion in Bowden's evidence as to whether the accused was present in the "Hole in the Wall" pub on the evening of the murder along with a number of other friends and associates including Brian Meehan.  The witness did not state in evidence nor in any of his statements to the police that the accused was one of those who attended what appears to have been some form of party in Bowden's house late that night.  Even if he had said so it would have had little or no significance in the context of the allegations made about the accused's alleged participation as a planner of the murder and provider of an important back-up service.
	Bowden did tell lies about his proposed trip to London on which he was ready to embark at the time of his arrest.  However, that is a matter on which he had an obvious interest in so doing and, as stated already, the court has no doubt whatever he would probably tell lies where he perceived it to be in his interest so to do.  
	Mr. McEntee has attached great significance to what he perceives to be lies told by Bowden about the bullets used in the killing.  The court has no doubt whatever that all of the bullets fired by the gunman on the fatal occasion came from the store of bullets which the gang had at its disposal in the graveyard and that the gun came from there also.  There is no reason whatever to disbelieve Bowden's admission that he was responsible for cleaning the gun, loading it and leaving it ready for murder.  Much play has been made of some confusion in the witness's evidence about the bullets placed by him in the gun.  He described them as being lead bullets inserted in cartridge cases but without the usual pointed tip.  He said that the tip of each bullet was concave in profile and he provided the police with a rough line drawing illustrating what he meant.  The court is satisfied that the drawing illustrates what he described i.e. a concave tip when the bullet is looked at sideways on.  His description does not accord with that of a dum-dum bullet which is not concave but which has a deep narrow hole in the centre of the flat top which is not visible sideways on.  Ballistics evidence has established that the bullets fired by the gunman were the type known as semi wad-cutters.  These are the same as dum-dum bullets but the top is solidly flat and there is no hole therein.  Both types of bullet are suitable for use in 9 mm pistols such as those found in the graveyard.  The ammunition found there included dum-dum and semi wad-cutter bullets.  The court has examined a specimen of each.  They are both of identical size fitted to similar metal casings.  In profile they look the same but neither has a concave head.  The description of the bullets which he inserted in the gun as given by the witness is slightly inaccurate but the court attaches no significance to that error.  There is no evidence that Bowden would have encountered either type of bullet in course of his career in the army and it is of interest that the ballistics experts have stated in evidence that semi wad-cutters are used by sporting clubs for target practice.  Surprisingly, it seems that they make a better hole in the target than pointed bullets of the type normally associated with military use.
	Mr. McEntee has also commented about what he perceives to be a shifting around in time and place of certain meetings alleged by the witness.  The court does not attach sinister significance to that contention and notes that in course of evidence the witness stated (see Book 23, pages 28/9) that it was not a case of moving one conversation to the other -

	"It is the same subject being discussed in different places."

	It is also submitted on behalf of the accused that his alleged confession to Bowden on 28th June at the accused's house (a meeting which he has stated never took place) is totally without context.  Bowden's evidence in that regard is that he went to the accused's dwelling and had a conversation alone with him there in course of which the accused is alleged to have told him about his part in the killing of Ms. Guerin.  He is criticised for not having said why he was there or what arrangement (if any) he had made to meet the accused at that time.  It is true that no such explanation was given but it is credible that senior criminal business associates who on Bowden's evidence were both involved in the killing of Veronica Guerin would discuss a matter which on that premise they had an obvious interest. 
	Reference has been made to information contained in the original statement made by Ms. Bacon, now Bowden's wife, which it is alleged casts some doubt on his account of his movements on the day of the murder.  That statement is not evidence and it has emerged also that Ms. Bacon made subsequent statements to the police which contradict some of the information originally given by her.  The information in question, if it had been given by the latter on oath as a witness in the trial, does not establish the contention that Meehan met Bowden and handed over the gun to him on the afternoon of the killing.  For the reasons already referred to the court is satisfied that no such hand-over took place.
	Evidence has been led on behalf of the accused which purports to establish that after the killing, Meehan and Holland drove to a premises called RNT Engineering in an industrial estate off the Belgard road.  There is some evidence to suggest that a motorbike with two crash-helmeted persons on it may have been ridden around to the back of the factory premises.  If that were so then it would suggest that the motorcycle may have been hidden there and not brought to the accused's house in Walkinstown road as alleged by the prosecution.  The relevant witnesses were not ad idem and the evidence is not sufficiently clear to establish that proposition or to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court in that regard.
	A matter to which much importance is given by the accused is that, being a drug addict, he would not have been recruited by the organisers of the crime to play any part in it - far less the crucial role of receiving and disposing of the motorcycle and the gun.  That argument does not stand up to critical analysis and the court notes in particular the following facts:-

(i)	If the accused's capacity and reliability was significantly impaired by heroin abuse which was on-going for a period of weeks at the material time as he alleges, his criminal business associates would not have allowed him to continue performing his pivotal role of collecting very large sums of money from wholesale customers on a daily basis.  If in that state he could readily have jeopardised the whole operation.
(ii)	The accused's contention as to incapacity flies in the face of the case which he makes that he had sufficient iron discipline to maintain total silence during a series of major interrogations by police officers over the 48 hour period of his Section 30 detention.
(iii)	On his evidence his own mother was not aware of his addiction.  She is the matriarch of the Ward family and would have had no difficulty in discerning the sort of symptoms described by the accused and Ms. Meehan.
(iv)	The accused's performance at the Green Isle Hotel in aid of his brother Shay is not that of a person significantly affected by drugs.
(v)	Likewise, the accused's commendable conduct in providing refuge and treatment for his niece, Natasha, who was then grievously afflicted by heroin abuse is not the conduct of a person who is himself a serious drug addict.
(vi)	The accused did not appear to Dr. Williams as having a significant drug addiction problem.
(vii)	There was no medical evidence adduced in support of the accused's contention. 

	The court is satisfied that the accused did not have a significant personal drug problem when arrested in October or in June, 1996.  It is probable that the physeptone was sought by him while in custody as a prop to help in sustaining the case which the accused subsequently made that he was a serious drug addict and, therefore, incapable of participating in the murder of Ms. Guerin as alleged. 
	Finally, the court has been urged to disregard the telephone evidence which has been given.  At best from the prosecution point of view it establishes no more than that on the day of the murder a large number of very short telephone calls passed between mobile phones owned by respectively the accused and Brian Meehan and also related landline calls.  Some of these occurred very close to the time when Ms. Guerin was murdered.  There is, of course, no evidence as to who made the calls or what was said.  As Mr. Leahy and Mr. Charlton have fairly conceded they are not corroborative of the prosecution case but may be supportive of it.  That seems to be a fair description of their relevance such as it may be.
	In conclusion, having reviewed the relevant evidence in this trial with meticulous care, in particular that of Charles Bowden and the accused, the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, Paul Ward, was an accessory before the fact to the murder of Ms. Veronica Guerin on 26th June, 1996 and therefore is guilty of the offence charged in the indictment.