THE GRASS IS ALWAYS MEANER

Frank Connolly explains how the state used supergrass evidence to assist in
the prosecution of a drugs case in a juryless court, which heard most
extraordinary claims about the defendant

Patrick Eugene Holland, the man whom gardai suspect of killing Veronica
Guerin, was convicted last Thursday of possession of and dealing in
cannabis. Holland had denied the charges when he gave evidence in the
Special Criminal Court on Wednesday.

The 58yearold printer, balding with a thin grey beard and soft voice, was
answering questions about his alleged role in cannabis dealing in Dublin
between October1 1995 and October 6 1996.

In attendance at the Green Street court, presided over by three judges
sitting without a jury, were up to two dozen gardai, about 10 journalists,
Jimmy Guerin (Veronica's brother), and a relation of the accused.

Seventeen months after the most dramatic murder in the state for many
years, and the first of an investigative reporter allegedly by those whom
she was investigating, the public gallery of the court hearing was almost
empty.

This was just one of several extraordinary aspects to last week's trial of
Patrick Holland. Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of the case is that
the court was told that Holland was a Guerin murder suspect.

In normal criminal trials held before a jury, such a statement by gardai or
other witnesses that Holland was arrested during their investigation
into the killing of Guerin would have been ruled prejudicial.

Defence counsel would have immediately asked for the jury to be discharged.

It would be normal for Circuit Court, Criminal Court or High Court judges
to accede to such a request unless, as one legal source put it, the
"evidential value of such a statement far outweighed its prejudicial value."

"In Holland's case, the evidential value of his alleged involvement in
Guerin's murder was of no consequence to the charge that he was a cannabis
dealer," said the lawyer who has observed the case.

The difference between normal procedure and this case, however, is that it
is being held without a jury in a court established specifically for the
purpose of trying people or groups attempting to overthrow the state, and
where there might be widespread intimidation of jury members.

Although nobody can discount the capacity of drugs barons and criminal
gangs to intimidate juries, the Special Criminal Court was expressly set up
to handle socalled political subversion rather than socalled ordinary
crime.

As the massive media coverage last week most notably in the news pages
of the Irish Independent displayed, the most dramatic aspect of the
Holland case was the fact that the main evidence against him was the word
of a confessed accomplice, Charles Bowden, who gave evidence surrounded by
a phalanx of armed gardai on Tuesday.

Holland claimed that he was held under Section 30 of the Offences against
the State Act but that he was not questioned in relation to any drug
dealing activities. He also claimed that one garda said that he would be
"done for drugs" after his release from interrogation.

Numerous garda witnesses denied this claim and insisted that Holland made
confessions with regard to his drug dealing activities. The court accepted
the evidence of these witnesses as corroboration of Bowden's claims and
convicted Holland.

Holland's solicitor, Jim Orange, was arrested by officers of the Criminal
Assets Bureau five hours after Holland's arrest at Dun Laoghaire on April 9
1997 and the solicitor's wife, Elizabeth Ferris was also refused access to
Holland during his detention.

Throughout the trial Holland denied admitting any part in criminal activity
as alleged by garda witnesses.

He said he had returned to Ireland to permit his questioning on the Guerin
murder and had secretly carried tape recording equipment in order to have
an independent account of his interrogation. He denied admitting any part
in criminal activity, as alleged by garda witnesses.

"It is just beyond belief that I would come home for one thing and then
admit to something that I would get big time for," Holland said.

Bowden, among other things, had alleged that Holland was a key customer of
his drugs distribution business, taking up to 35 kilograms from Bowden,
through a third party, on regular occasions.

Bowden confirmed that Holland had never received the drugs directly from
him although the pair met once or twice a week over several months in 1995
and 1996.

Notes on a list of customers found at the south Dublin lockup garage used
by Bowden for cutting and packaging the drugs included reference to 'The
Wig' which Bowden claimed was Holland's nickname. Holland denied having
such a nickname although he confirmed that he wore a wig at one point
during his life, including the time he was a prisoner in Portlaoise jail.

Holland also denied the only other substantial accusation in relation to
the drugs charge, that he regularly met and arranged the pickup of huge
quantities of cannabis on a regular basis from Bowden.

But it was Bowden's admissions in relation to the Guerin killing, in the
course of his evidence during a drugdealing case, which most intrigued
legal circles, the media and the public.

Bowden said that he had prepared the gun used in the Guerin killing, a .357
magnum pistol which defence counsel insisted had 12 hollowpointed 'dum
dum' bullets, and had seen the after the shooting.

The 33yearold former Irish defence forces soldier had previously arranged
to have the gun and ammunition hidden in a graveyard after it was smuggled
into the country in January 1996 with a consignment of cannabis.

He said he had heard three other named men talking about shooting the
journalist and said that when he prepared the gun he knew it was going to
be used in the shooting.

He explained to the court that another man had ordered the shooting because
Guerin had persisted with assault charges against him.

He denied that he knew Guerin was going to be murdered although he agreed
that dum dum bullets "would most probably cause death."

The court heard that Bowden was serving a six year sentence for drugs and
firearms offences and that he was the first person to give evidence under
the state's witness protection programme introduced last July.

Bowden agreed with defence counsel Brendan Grogan SC that his admissions
could have led to charges of complicity to murder being made against him
but said that he knew he would never be prosecuted in connection with a
murder.

Notwithstanding the massive evidence against Bowden, the Garda has
dispensed with the opportunity to put him away for his admitted role in the
journalist's killing in order, it seems, that he might help put others
away. Bowden is serving six years for other offences following an earlier
trial.

The socalled supergrass system involving the use of the uncorroborated
word of informers against their former accomplices has been widely
discredited in other jurisdictions.

In the six counties, where it was employed from 1982 until 1987, it was
finally abandoned because of the unsafe nature of convictions obtained
under the 'supergrass' system. The Irish government was to the forefront of
its critics.

According to one lawyer familiar with the ultimately unsuccessful use of
informer evidence in the north, the system collapsed under the weight of
its own contradictions.

"Bowden has been given complete immunity (regarding the Guerin case) which
by the end of the system in the north was not given to those charged with
murder. It is in his interests to heighten his value which is dependant on
the level of information he can provide," said the lawyer.

"The supergrass system brings the whole justice system into disrepute.
There are a number of other aspects in this case which raise serious
concern among lawyers, not least the arrest of Holland's solicitor."