Two leading handwriting experts battle it out at Tuam Court over alleged forgery at Garda station

TWO of the country's leading handwriting experts went head-to-head at Tuam Court on Tuesday in a drunk driving cases in which the defence alleged the defendant's signature was forged on vital Garda documentation involved in his case. A leading expert who works with the PSNI argued that a defendant's signature had been forged while a senior Garda forensic handwriting expert gave evidence that the alleged forgery, in his opinion, was a ploy to frustrate a drink driving prosecution.[private] The case went on for over three hours, during which it became apparent that the defence team were insinuating that a Garda deliberately forged the signature in question. The Gardai vehemently denied what Judge Geoffrey Brown described as innuendo on the part of the defence and fought a very vigorous prosecution case which was ultimately successful, resulting in a prosecution. Garda Michelle Hallinan told the Court that she stopped Thomas Greaney of New Village, Belclare on the night of October 29/30, 2010 and after observing his demeanour arrested him on suspicion of drunk driving. He was taken to Tuam Garda station where an intoxalyser reading showed a concentration of 86/100. No notes Defending barrister Keith O'Grady, instructed by Joan O'Brien solr, at the outset objected to Garda Hallinan consulting her contemporaneous notes, insisting she give her evidence from memory. Judge Browne said it was unreasonable to expect the Garda to remember precise detail from almost two year ago, but acknowledged that the defence had the right to insist. The central argument put forward by the defence was that Greaney only signed two forms while in custody, the custody record when he was first brought in and his station bail when leaving. Greaney insisted he did not sign a third document, the intoxalyser readout, known as an S17. It was the defence's case that someone forged Greaney's signature on the S17 form. Keith O'Grady said they were not suggesting that that Garda Hallinan had forged the signature but a person unknown had done so. Insp Michael O'Dwyer insisted that this was exactly the insinuation implied by the defence as the only people who could have done so were Garda Hallinan and two of her colleagues who had come in contact with the defendant on the night. Judge Geoffrey Browne agreed that this was the only conclusion a rational person could come to on hearing Greaney's defence. Mr O'Grady brought in a handwriting expert, Brian Crewthorne, a forensic scientist who works with the PSNI. He testified that that it was his judgement that the signature on the S17 form was a forgery, a copy based on Greaney's signature on the custody record. Proper procedures Garda Hallinan gave evidence that she had adhered to proper procedures at all stages of the process and that she and a colleague, Garda Ann Connor, had witnessed Greaney sign the S17 form. Garda Connor corroborated this evidence, saying she remembered clearly because it was the first time she had been present while the intoxalyser was being operated. She had offered to act as the witness for Garda Hallinan while she carried out the test and was certain of her evidence. Keith O'Grady suggested she was aware of a problem she had to 'fix' and her evidence was based on this. Garda Connor strongly denied this, stating she didn't have to fix any problem, just make her statement as required. Judge Browne intervened at this stage, pointing out that there was innuendo here that Garda Connor had acted incorrectly. This was implicit in what he was alleging. Mr O'Grady said this was not so, he was not saying a Garda forged the signature, just that someone had. Three hours In over three hours of evidence the two handwriting experts outlined their positions. The defence insisted that the signature in question was a forgery, the prosecution arguing that the signature had deliberately been scribbled by Greaney in the hope of thwarting a prosecution against him. Detective Insp Michael Moore of the Garda Technical Bureau told the Court he had worked as a handwriting expert for 20 years and was experienced in detecting when people were trying to disguise their signatures Insp Michael O'Dwyer put it to the defence's handwriting expert that he had not taken into account the fact that Greaney was two and a half times over the legal limit when he was in the Garda Station and only included this aspect in a third report when he had the benefit of Insp Moore's opinion. He argued that Mr Crewthorne's first report was based on photocopies, a source which Insp Moore dismissed as flawed. His second report was based on an inspection of the original documents with a hand-held magnifying glass at Tuam Court House. Insp Moore stated that his single report was based on original documents and was carried out in the Garda forensic laboratories in the Phoenix Park. He insisted that the third report from the defence expert was written after Det Insp Moore had furnished him his findings. Could writing alter? Judge Browne asked if he had come across people whose writing altered when they were under mental or psychological stress. Could it be that the defendant realised he was in trouble, possibly off the road with his job at stake, and maybe this impacted on his writing and behaviour. The witness said people behaved in all sorts of ways under pressure, adding that alcohol could also be a contributing factor. Insp O'Dwyer asked Greaney why he thought two Gardai of many years standing with impeccable records would give evidence of seeing him signing the form, if they had not. He put it to him that the Gardai were sober at the time while he was two and a half times over the legal limit. Greaney insisted that he had not signed the form and that the Garda had not provided him with the required documentation when he left the station. In direct evidence Det Insp Moore went into elaborate detail of how he went about analysing handwriting. He said he had come across many cases in his career where people deliberately tried to disguise their signatures. However, experts could generally identify some telltale characteristic which could not be disguised. It was his opinion that Greaney made no attempt to put a proper signature on the disputed form, but he was satisfied that the scrawl was still his. The best way to explain it he said was the way people would put a scrawl on a raffle ticket they knew they had no hope of winning. It was meant to be a signature but was often simply an illegible scrawl. He agued that if someone was trying to forge a signature they would have made more effort to make it pictorially similar to the real one in order to pass a casual inspection. Such forgeries were usually hesitant, carefully created, not an illegible scrawl as in this case. â€ËœToo flowing' Countering, the defence argued that the signature in question was too flowing to be Greaney's, who has poor handwriting. Det Insp Moore said a five year old child could produce a meaningless scribble with a similar flow. Dismissing the defence expert's third report, he said some of it was cut and pasted from his earlier reports, it was contradictory and he described more of it as a 'get out clause'. Keith O'Grady stated that his expert had never alleged any Garda had forged the signature and asked Insp Moore if he accepted this. Insp Moore said he did not. Insp O'Dwyer said it was not fair to come out with this at this stage when the defence was quite clearly suggesting impropriety on the part of the Gardai. Judge Browne agreed. He said the innuendo was quite clear. If a Garda hadn't forged the signature, then who could, he asked. The Judge said as he understood it the document would not have been out of Garda Hallinan's hands. It would have been kept under lock and key and she'd hardly have brought it home with her. Doubt Summing up, Mr O'Grady said there had to be a doubt in a case where two such experienced handwriting experts so fundamentally disagreed. There was no evidence that his client had taken any steps to frustrate the process after his arrest. The Judge was not being asked to accept that the Gardai had done anything wrong, simply that there was a doubt and his client should get the benefit of it. Summing up for the prosecution, Insp O'Dwyer said the case presented by the defence was contradictory. What's more, there was no motive for the Gardai to interfere with the process in the way insinuated because if Greaney had not signed the form as required, he could have been prosecuted for this offence. What would be the motive for forging a signature, he asked. He accused the defence of trying to 'muddy the waters' by inferring wrongdoing on the part of the Gardai, despite Mr O'Grady's denials. He also pointed out that Garda Hallinan's handwriting was on the documentation and the defence made no attempt to have it analysed to support their innuendo. â€ËœVigorously defended' Judge Browne said this was a strongly contested and vigorously defended case. There were two respected experts, both with 20 years' experience in handwriting, but he just keep coming back to the same question, what benefit would there be for a Guard to forge a signature? If Greaney had not signed it he would have been prosecuted. In addition, even if Garda Hallinan had not asked him to sign it, it was not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case. 'There is something absolutely ridiculous about this. Either Tuam Garda Station is in total disarray and they don't give a hoot, not following legal procedure by offering the defendant any of the documentation he's entitled to, or he's not telling the truth. I have no doubt the correct procedures were carried out by Garda Hallinan and her colleagues and I'm convicting the defendant,' the Judge concluded. He imposed a three-year driving ban and a fine of €1,500. Recognisances were fixed in the event of an appeal.[/private]