Pardons for men wrongly hanged in 1883 for murder
MINISTER for Justice Helen McEntee has recommend to President Michael D Higgins that Sylvester Poff and James Barrett receive a posthumous presidential pardon.
The men were wrongly convicted for the murder of Thomas Browne near Scartaglin in 1882 and hanged in early 1883.
It follows a detailed report by Dr Niamh Howlin, and the pardon has been granted to the two men on the grounds that their convictions were unsafe.
Minister McEntee has also acknowledged the work of the Castleisland District Heritage Incorporating Michael O’Donohue Memorial Project in bringing the case to her Department.
On October 3, 1882, Mr Browne was murdered while working on his land in Dromulton, and he was shot dead by two men in dark coats.
Mr Poff and Mr Barrett were in the vicinity at the time and, despite not matching descriptions of the murderers, they were arrested on foot of a statement from a neighbour who claimed to have seen them enter the field in which Mr Browne was shot.
The jury in the men’s first trial failed to agree a verdict but were subsequently convicted following a second trial. The prosecution case largely rested on the neighbour’s evidence, although his story changed as the case progressed.
The men were hanged in Tralee in January, 1883. “This is a very rare occurrence and a very high bar must be reached for the Government to recommend to the president that he exercise this right,” said Minister McEntee today.
“Having considered the findings in Dr Howlin’s report, the trial, conviction and execution of Mr Poff and Mr Barrett were unfair by the standards of the time.
“Both men were wrongfully convicted and suffered the harshest penalty under the law of the time in what can now be attributed to a miscarriage of justice.”
Dr Howlin reached her conclusion after considering a number of factors, including evidential deficiencies, no motive, and neglection of other lines of enquiry.
She also found there was no direct evidence against the men, with the case relying on the circumstantial and contradictory evidence from one witness.
“A 21st century criminal court would not convict Poff and Barrett on the basis of the evidence which was presented by the Crown in 1882,” said Dr Howlin. “The convictions were also inconsistent with the legal standards of the period.
“They were convicted on the basis of evidence which was both circumstantial and weak.
“The trials and conviction of Poff and Barrett included legal and procedural deficiencies which were ‘so inconsistent with the legal standards of the period and so objectively unsatisfactory and unfair, that they render the conviction unsafe.”