Convictions against three men over planned bomb attack on RUC football team ruled 'unsafe'

Senior judges identified “reprehensible” and deliberate police misconduct which was never revealed at the original trial of Declan John Murphy, Conor Gilmore and Declan John Moen.

The decision, by a two to one majority, was based on an examination of a confidential annex of material.

In 1991 all three men were found guilty at a non-jury trial of possessing explosive substances with intent.

The charges related to a bomb planted at Limavady United FC’s ground ahead of a home match against the RUC in December 1989.

The deadly device, made up of Semtex and ball bearings to act as shrapnel, had been placed in the away dugout.

It was to be detonated by radio remote control when the police officers in the RUC team were at that part of the stadium, previous courts heard.

The terrorist plot was thwarted because fixture rearrangements meant the match did not go ahead on that date.

Mr Murphy, Mr Gilmore and Mr Moen had already mounted a previous failed legal bid to clear their names.

But in 2022 a body which examines potential miscarriages of justice referred their cases back to the Court of Appeal.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) cited sensitive reasons for the decision.

It centred on the emergence of potential fresh evidence which was not disclosed at the original trial.

Most of the hearing took place in private due to the sensitivity of the material.

Special advocates appointed to protect the interests of the three appellants argued that if disclosure had been made at trial it would have revealed serious misconduct by the police.

Despite conceding the misconduct was indefensible, prosecutors insisted the convictions remained safe because it had no impact on the fairness of the criminal proceedings.

But two members of the appeal panel, Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Colton, ruled: “The abuse of process issues that arise are of such a level of deliberate police misconduct to offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety and undermine public confidence in the justice system.”

In a brief, three-page judgment, they held that the three men’s appeals must be allowed.

Dissenting from their assessment, Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan found on balance that the trial was fair and that the convictions remained safe.

“While the conduct of the police is reprehensible, this is outweighed by the competing public interest in the prosecution of serious terrorist offences,” she stated.

However, Dame Siobhan confirmed: “Therefore, by a majority, the decision of this court is that the convictions are not safe on the abuse of process ground referred by the CCRC and argued by the Special Advocates.”