The
ongoing Omagh civil litigation has been listed
for 16th April 2007 when the case is expected
to finally get under way. Even at this early stage,
many observers in the legal profession consider
it, as being prejudiced, deeply flawed and under
the present format it can only return an unfair
and dishonest judgment. The British authorities
have the case structured in such that it will
deny the defendants any hope of defending themselves
in the case.
It
is expected that the unprecedented civil case
will be one of the most complex litigation cases
in modern times and will be watched with interest
throughout the western world. During a recent
preliminary hearing in September 2006, a most
bizarre development unfolded which smacks of the
bad old days of the Northern Ireland Diplock Courts.
The
complications in the case unfolded when it was
revealed that at least one of the five defendants
in the case will have no legal representation
because the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission
in Belfast have refused to grant legal aid. The
defendant, Michael McKevitt has been refused legal
aid and will not be represented throughout the
marathon hearing.
Initially
in 2002 Michael was granted legal aid to defend
the case; this was later revoked in 2003 after
Michael was convicted in Dublin's non-jury Special
Criminal Court on the sole word of MI5 super-grass
David Rupert. One of the grounds upon which the
(NILSC) revoked Michael's legal aid was that 'he
is a man of straw' who would be unable to meet
any damaged awarded against him. Yet notwithstanding
this fact, the Lord Chancellor directed that the
£742,702 plus vat be awarded to sustain
this futile civil action. This is just one proof
that the motivation behind the civil action is
accusatory and not compensatory.
Michael
has a very strong defence case, which was previously
outlined to the court by his lawyers at a time
when he was legally aided. Even at this late stage,
Michael is confident that he would successfully
defend the case against him if given the opportunity
of re-engaging his legal team for the hearing.
Michael's
family believe that he is being deliberately obstructed
from opening aspects of the case which the British
state wish to keep under wraps, fearful that exposure
of specific issues would connect their agents
in the Security Services to the Omagh bombing
both directly and indirectly.
The
denial of a defence team in the civil case will
protect the super-grass David Rupert from cross-examination.
It will also protect MI5 from the embarrassment
of cross-examination into their connections with
and prior information of the bomb attack at Omagh.
Without a defence team, the court will be denied
sight of records, which contain details of Rupert's
previous admissions into his criminal past. Much
of this information is contained in documents
held by the British Security Services (MI5).
Under
such circumstances, the civil case will no doubt
return the desired outcome required by the British
state and a section of the Omagh Victims families,
who it would seem are more interested in vengeance
rather than the truth. However, under those circumstances
the hearing will not return a fair, balanced or
truthful judgment in this case.
From the outset when Michael announced that he
would defend the civil case, the Courts in Belfast
have placed obstacle after obstacle in his path
to deny him an opportunity to defend the case.
While Michael has been continually denied legal
aid, the plaintiffs in the case have been granted
legal assistance by every means including unlawful
means.
In
September 2005, the Belfast High Court granted
relief in a judicial review application on behalf
of Michael and declared that the British Lord
Chancellor, Lord Falconer had acted unlawfully
when in February 2004 he directed the newly formed
Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission (NILSC)
to make £742,702 plus vat available to the
relatives of the Omagh victims to enable them
to continue with a civil claim against Michael
and four others arising out of the 1998 Omagh
bomb.
By
subsidising the Omagh civil action in this manner
the British government attempted to prosecute
Michael McKevitt and others using a lower civil
standard of proof (on the balance of probabilities)
than would be necessary in criminal proceedings
(beyond reasonable doubt)
To
date, throughout most of the preliminary hearings,
Michael had no legal representation present in
the Court, the Judge in each hearing ignored the
fact that Michael was not legally represented
which in itself is highly questionable. No documentation,
transcripts or details of the hearings were sent
to Michael, his only source of information on
the hearings was through the print media.
However,
Michael determined as ever made numerous written
submissions from Portlaoise prison directly to
Mr Justice Morgan and continually highlighted
the lack of communications, the unfairness and
continued lack of equality of arms in the case.
Mr Justice Morgan ignored Michael's dilemma without
even a reply.
In October 2006 the Judge was contacted about
the lack of communication and unfairness by a
Human Rights organisation who had been monitoring
Michael's case for a number of years. Mr Justice
Morgan seemed embarrassed by the whole affair
and indicated that Michael did not receive any
details of the preliminary hearings due to a clerical
error. No doubt a hint of the old Diplock Court
days surfacing.
Subsequent
to the letter from the Human Rights organisation
Mr Justice Morgan contacted Michael by letter
and informed him that he may consider recommending
legal aid if Michael provided him an outline of
the defence which he proposes to use in the case.
Michael replied to the letter and repeated what
he had previously stated in his communications
to the Judge, that he wasn't in a position to
do this without legal advice. He also pointed
out that he had no legal experience to compile
documentation for the court.
However,
the mask slipped and the prejudice from the Judge
became apparent. Michael's solicitors (K.Winter's
& Co Belfast) had already submitted an outline
of the defence case to the Court while they been
on record between 2002 and 2003. Mr Justice Morgan
should have been aware that the defence lawyers
in the case had already met with the defence requirements
in the case. Michael had been conscious that in
civil law all parties should be aware in advance
of the cases to be made by each party. However,
it seemed that the Judge was not satisfied that
the defence had already complied with their obligations,
he required further defence details which was
outside of the normal requirements.
To
date, Mr Justice Morgan has deliberately denied
Michael the very basic expectations during the
preliminaries of this case. He has also been denied
adequate time to prepare a defence for the case
and when the case itself gets under way he may
have no legal representation present in the Court.
By his actions, it would certainly seem that Mr
Justice Morgan is complicit in denying Michael
his basic fundamental right to have legal representation
or a fair and balanced hearing. Judging by his
involvement in the case to date it seems that
Mr Justice Morgan is unable to fulfil a proper
independent and impartial role in this case.
Mr
Justice Morgan cannot distance himself from this
denial of the very basic rights and he is solely
responsible for allowing this illegality to have
happened throughout the preliminaries in this
case to date. By his actions Mr Justice Morgan
has already prejudiced himself in this case and
he should remove himself from the case without
delay.
In
any normal case of law, civil or otherwise the
presiding Judge is duty bound to ensure all legal
requirements and standards are adhered to and
that the defendant is treated fair and equal manner
throughout. In this case, Mr Justice Morgan has
not met his obligations and should resign forthwith.
