Appeal court decision paves way for fresh Ian Bailey trial
Ian Bailey has lost most grounds of his appeal over a High Court jury’s rejection of his civil claim for damages against the State over the conduct of the Garda investigation into the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, reports Ann O’Loughlin.
The Court of Appeal decision paves the way for a possible fresh trial of the case on a limited issue – whether alleged wrongful disclosure of information by gardai prior to Mr Bailey’s libel case against various media in 2003 amounted to conspiracy .
Mr Bailey, whose extradition to France was refused earlier this week by the High Court, was in the appeal court when its judgment was given this afternoon.
After a 64 day hearing, a High Court jury had in March 2015 dismissed Mr Bailey’s claims various gardai conspired to frame him for the late 1996 murder in west Cork of the French film maker.
His appeal was heard over two days last March and Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan, sitting with Mr Justice George Birmingham and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, said it raised "important and difficult issues" and the court was reserving judgment.
Today, the court, in a joint judgment of Mr Justice Birmingham and Mr Justice Hogan with which Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan agreed, said, save in one minor respect, the appeal should be dismissed and the State’s cross-appeal should also be dismissed.
The essential claim was of an overarching conspiracy by the gardai and it was not unfair to allow the State defendants raise the issue of it being statute barred on day 62 of the 64 day case, it held.
It dismissed most of Mr Bailey’s 17 grounds of appeal and also dismissed the State’s cross-appeal.
Mr Bailey’s 17 grounds of appeal included claims the trial judge, Mr Justice John Hedigan should not, on day 62 of the case and following a State application, have withdrawn from the jury most of Mr Bailey’s claims, including of wrongful arrest, on grounds those were statute barred.
Mr Bailey claimed that meant the jury was left to consider only a "narrow" aspect of his conspiracy claim.
He also argued Mr Justice Hedigan should not have warned key witness Marie Farrell about perjury in front of the jury and had wrongly curtailed evidence given by former DPPs Eamonn Barnes and James Hamilton and from Robert Sheehan, a solicitor in the DPP’s office who criticised the Garda investigation.
The State cross-appealed the judge’s decision insofar as it allowed the jury consider whether three gardai conspired to frame Mr Bailey for murder. The State contended the conspiracy claim was imprecisely pleaded and was also statute barred.
The State also argued the warning by Mr Justice Hedigan to Ms Farrell, when seen in the entire circumstances of Mr Bailey’s civil case against the Garda Commissioner and State, could not be regarded as having biased the jury against Mr Bailey.
It said the warning was given in the context of Ms Farrell having made “sensational” allegations against gardai, including of sexual impropriety, and admitting perjuring herself in separate libel proceedings by Mr Bailey against various media.
Speaking outside court after the proceedings, Mr. Bailey said he was reasonably pleased.
"I would have hoped I might have won on more points but this has opened the door on a new case and that’s what we came here for. So we are reasonably pleased."
