|
Over
the past two and a half years my family, my legal
representatives and I have invested an enormous amount
of time and energy refuting the charges laid before
me in the indictment. However, I was never so naïve
as to believe I would find Justice in the Special
Criminal Court. From the outset, I was cognisant of
the fact that I was the subject of an investigation
that was politically motivated and conducted with
impropriety. I was denied my democratic right to be
tried by a jury of my peers; and I was the subject
of a prosecution that was predicated upon concealment
of vital evidence and the testimony of a MI5 paid
perjurer. Consequently, I solemnly believe that I
have been systematically denied the right to a fair
trial.
Arising
from this belief, on Thursday 24 July, I discharged
my legal representatives and formally withdrew from
the trial. My decision to embark upon a peaceful and
dignified protest was based upon the incontrovertible
belief that I was denied the right to a fair trial.
I believe my opinion is supported by a plethora of
irrefutable facts.
Since
my arrest in March 2001, my legal representatives
have steadfastly pursued the disclosure of all relevant
documentation pertaining to this case. In this regard
they left no stone unturned. My solicitor, Mr. James
McGuill, continually wrote to the DPP requesting the
disclosure of all relevant surveillance reports and
documentation. However, these requests for disclosure
were repeatedly denied. Nonetheless, our endeavours
were not confined to legal correspondence. Legal applications
for disclosure were also brought before the courts.
In
April 2002, the Special Criminal Court declared it
had no power to make an order that could compel MI5
or the FBI to disclose relevant documentation. Furthermore,
in October 2002, Chief-Superintendent Callinan, in
an affidavit presented to the Special Criminal Court
during a four-day disclosure hearing, stated that
all undisclosed documents were either irrelevant to
the Defence case or were being withheld on grounds
of national security. During this hearing the Prosecution
also declared that all relevant documentation had
been disclosed. The Special Criminal Court, mistakenly,
accepted these assurances.
On
Friday 18 July 2003, the Prosecution disclosed documents
which contradicted Mr. Rupert’s statement in
the book of evidence. In his written statement, Mr.
Rupert alleged that I attended an IRA Army Council
meeting on 17 February 2000. However in contrast,
the recently disclosed Garda surveillance reports
situate me at my home on this date.
The
recent disclosure of these extremely important surveillance
reports, on the twenty-second day of the trial, have
rendered worthless the assurances of Chief-Superintendent
Callinan and the Prosecution. Why were these relevant
legal documents concealed for two and a half years
on grounds of national security, only to be subsequently
considered eligible for disclosure on Friday 18 July
2003, twenty two days into the trial and after Mr.
Rupert had presented his evidence? Clearly, the disclosure
of these documents was in no way detrimental to national
security. However, prompt disclosure was detrimental
to an effective prosecution of this case and to the
advantage of the Defence. Perhaps here lies the true
reason for concealment?
Furthermore,
how could Chief-Superintendent Callinan and the Prosecution
claim, during the four-day disclosure hearing, that
all relevant material had been disclosed? Clearly
this was not the case. The Defence prepared its case
on the basis of Mr. Rupert’s statement in the
book of evidence. If these surveillance reports had
been promptly disclosed prior to the commencement
of the trial, the Defence would have reassessed its
strategy, the presentation of its case and its cross-examination
of Mr. Rupert. Indeed Mr. Hugh Hartnett SC informed
the court that the withholding of these documents
‘had irreparably damaged’ and ‘disadvantaged
and disabled’ the Defence case ‘to a significant
extent’. The Prosecution cannot claim that they
did not have ample requests for disclosure. Nor can
they point to an oversight. Clearly, somebody took
a decision to withhold this information which directly
undermined Mr. Rupert's credibility as a witness.
I find this totally unacceptable. But these developments
pose a further serious question: What other material
has been withheld from the Defence?
In
its ruling on the four-day disclosure hearing of October
2002 the Special Criminal Court accepted the assurances
of Chief-Superintendent Callinan and the Prosecution,
when they stated that all relevant material had been
disclosed. But in light of the recent disclosure of
key surveillance reports on 18 July 2003, how can
the Special Criminal Court disregard the fact that
its willingness to accept these assurances was a monumental
error which ‘disadvantaged and disabled’
the Defence case?
However
my difficulties were not confined to improprieties
regarding the disclosure of Garda surveillance reports.
As Prosecuting Counsel, Mr. George Birmingham stated
the success of the Prosecution’s case ‘would
significantly turn on the credibility of the key witness,
Mr. Rupert’. A man who, according to his own
testimony, claimed to be motivated by ‘moral
teachings’. Yet as Defence Counsel pointed out
during the course of the trial, Mr. Rupert was an
amoral man with a ‘criminal and smuggling past’.
A man motivated solely by financial self-aggrandisement
and who, to quote Mr. Hugh Hartnett SC, ‘had
perjured himself during his three weeks in the witness-box’.
In
May 1997 the FBI offered Mr. Rupert’s services
to MI5. When Mr. Rupert was introduced to MI5 he described
himself as ‘a whore’ who was primarily motivated
by money. Furthermore, a MI5 document dated 10 August
2000 details how Mr. Rupert described himself as ‘a
mercenary’ during the course a meeting with his
MI5 handlers. This proved to be a revealing and apposite
self-characterisation. In the same document Mr. Rupert
confided to MI5, and I quote, “I am a mercenary
so to speak, tell me what to do, make it worth my
while and as long as the benefit overrides the risk
in my view it will be done to the best of my ability”.
Hardly the utterances of a man guided by ‘moral
teachings’.
Furthermore,
in a document detailing a meeting between MI5, the
FBI and An Garda Siochana on the 21st July 1999, Assistant
Garda Commissioner Jennings ineloquently referred
to Mr. Rupert as ‘a bullshitter’ and declared
that ‘he continued to be dismissive about the
reporting from Rupert provided by the British Intelligence
Services’.
Nevertheless,
on 28 November 2000, Mr. Rupert met several MI5 agents
at a secure location in America. At this meeting Mr.
Rupert was informed that he would have to make a statement
to the Gardai. He was also informed that I would be
arrested, questioned on the basis of his statement
and subsequently charged with directing, and membership
of, an illegal organisation. This discussion with
MI5 took place almost six weeks before Mr. Rupert
made his statement to the Gardai [9th Jan 2001] and
three months before my arrest [29 March 2001]. Clearly,
MI5 instructed Mr. Rupert to structure his statement
to conform to their agenda and with a view to bolstering
the charges that were subsequently laid before me
in the indictment. From the outset, it was evident
that Mr. Rupert’s primary interest was financial
gain. His word was pliable and his statements and
testimony were easily moulded by the guarantee of
lucrative MI5 and FBI financial contracts. Furthermore,
the court heard how Mr. Rupert’s lucrative book
contact was predicated upon a successful conclusion
of this trial. Surely, these combined inducements
are tantamount to a financial incentive to sensationalize
and provide incriminating testimony?
Notwithstanding
the details surrounding Mr. Rupert’s murky past,
the discrepancies between certain MI5 documents and
Mr. Rupert’s testimony were simply beyond belief.
A MI5 document, disclosed on 15 April 2002, refers
to Mr. Rupert’s ‘criminal and smuggling
background’. However, Mr. Rupert, in his Garda
statement of 9 January 2001 and his testimony before
the Special Criminal Court, denied any such ‘criminal
and smuggling past’. I ask myself was Mr. Rupert’s
evidence in relation to this matter untruthful or
was the author of the MI5 document deliberately misleading
the Defence? We shall never know the opinion of the
MI5 author, as he/she could not be compelled to appear
before this court.
Furthermore,
there are strong indications that MI5 documents were
being tampered with in order to enhance the prosecution
of this case. In a MI5 typed note dated 8 February
2001, which was disclosed to the Defence, a MI5 officer
stated that Assistant Garda Commissioner Jennings
urged that certain reports, and I quote, ‘be
removed’. The MI5 officer then informed Assistant
Garda Commissioner Jennings that other ‘trickinesses’
in certain reports were being addressed. Evidently,
an Assistant Garda Commissioner was pro-actively engaged
with MI5 in manipulating, in advance, the evidence
which might be presented by the gardai to the DPP
to justify my arrest and arraignment. Is this not
a clear example of interference with evidence in order
to bolster the prosecution of this case?
Throughout,
MI5 has been central to this case. Indeed, for the
past six weeks several members of MI5 have colonised
a significant section of the Special Criminal Court
and have previously been afforded facilities within
the confines of the courthouse to facilitate the storage
of documents. In my opinion this is nothing short
of a national scandal. MI5’s deployment of Mr.
Rupert in the twenty-six counties also raises other
more serious questions which affect the welfare of
every Irish citizen. When was the Dublin government
informed that this MI5 agent was operating in Ireland?
Did the Dublin government have prior knowledge and
grant subsequent approval? The Special Criminal Court
is no more than a stone’s throw from Parnell
Street, which in May 1974 was just one location targeted
by the MI5 during the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. For
the Dublin government to be assisting MI5 more than
twenty-nine years after this tragic event is nothing
short of contemptible. But this fact also raises one
further salient question: How many more MI5 agents
are currently operating in the twenty-six counties
with the Dublin government’s approval? These
are salient questions which must be answered.
My
conviction was primarily predicated upon the concealment
of vital evidence, the testimony of an MI5 paid perjurer
and a joint investigation by MI5, the FBI and the
Gardai, which was conducted with impropriety and involved
the planting of evidence in my home and interference
with documentation.
From
the outset I never expected to find Justice in the
Special Criminal Court. Since its inception the Special
Criminal Court has shown itself to be a discredited
house of law and devoid of Justice. In this regard
my expectations were confirmed, as I was systematically
denied a fair trial throughout the past six weeks.
However, I am determined to take my case before another
court in an attempt to overturn this flawed judgement
and to attain Justice.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
