|
Anti-terror
laws which even the government classify as Draconian,
a special court which reaches its judgements without
a jury, and a highly-paid FBI agent whose statements
– even according to the prosecution – are
the only evidence: The trial of Michael McKevitt the
alleged leader of the Real IRA, made evident the questionable
methods which are also used in the Irish Republic
for continuing the fight against terror. McKevitt
was sentenced in Dublin in August for directing acts
of terror (directing terrorism) and for membership
of an illegal Organization to 20 years in prison.
Irish and British politicians and commentators greeted
the sentence with satisfaction, as it was intended
to punish the man allegedly behind the bomb attack
in Omagh, Northern Ireland on 15 August 1998. Twenty
nine people were killed in the attack just five months
after the peace accord was signed in Northern Ireland.
The Real IRA, a splinter group of the IRA, accepted
responsibility for the massacre, but the bombers have
not been identified to the present day, let alone
been put on trial. Only accessories have been put
on trial todate. Of course Michael McKevitt could
not be charged with being the mastermind for the attack
in Omagh, as the new crime of “directing terrorism”
only belonged to the package of laws which was passed
by the Irish parliament just three weeks after the
attack. But McKevitts activities were supposed to
be brought to a stop with this very corpus delicti.
The
Irish emergency legislation
In
April 1998, the Irish government signed a multiparty
agreement as a precondition for political discussions
in Northern Ireland. The agreement also implied fundamental
scrutiny of the Anti-Terror laws and the Special Criminal
Court where three appointed judges preside without
a jury, and which have been subject to continuous
criticism by lawyers and human rights organisations.
But in view of the fact of Police knowledge that the
Omagh bombers operated from the Irish Republic, the
liberalisation which was hoped for was not forthcoming.
The
Offences Against the State Act 1998 (OASA) is based
on the Free State emergency laws from 1939. They have
been repeatedly amended, most commonly with the threat
of higher penalties. This time new offences were added:
Apart from directing an illegal Organization, they
include punishments for possession and/or collecting
information which is likely to be useful to members
of illegal organisations. The recent amendments also
make access to a lawyer more difficult. The period
of time where a suspect can be held in police custody
without charge has been increased from 48 to 72 hours.
Furthermore, the right of the accused to silence has
been restricted, so that the court may infer negative
implications when the accused does not answer or refuses
to answer questions during preliminary investigative
proceedings. Refusal of the suspect to answer the
questions can be used as supporting evidence: For
example, a sworn statement made under oath by a high-ranking
police officer (Chief Superintendent) before the court
that he believes the accused to be a member of an
illegal Organization. In some cases, this statement
is enough to convict the accused, even if the statement
of the Chief Superintendent is based on hearsay or
other unsubstantiated sources such as secret service
sources. In any other criminal case, “personal
conviction” would be considered to be a bad joke,
but not for the accused facing trial before the Special
Criminal Court.
The
problems the defence faces with the substance of such
“convictions” became evident in a trial
which dragged on for three months against seven members
of the Republican Sinn Fein party, including the parties
Vice President Desmond Long. In fact, on the 8th of
May 2003, six of the seven defendants were acquitted
of the charge of being members of an illegal Organization,
but luck was only on their side because the Police
had made a faux pas. The seventh man was convicted
on the word of a high-ranking Police officer. “The
laws were not reformed in 1998, they were put back
hundreds of years” said defence lawyer John Devane.
He does not hesitate to characterise the trial where
he was a defence lawyer as a “Show trial”.
His colleague Ross Maguire calls to mind an old saying
when analysing the McKevitt case which states that
difficult cases provoke bad laws: “Draconian
measures which shake the foundation on which the principles
of our legal system are based, could undermine the
entire system and promote fatal developments, which
were not intended at the outset”.
The
chief (state) witness in the McKevitt case
The
court described the American David Rupert, who was
supposed to make contact with the Irish underground
Organization through Irish-American groups, as a contracted
and paid FBI Agent and protected witness. He had received
about 1.7 million Euro before he took the stand as
chief prosecution witness according to details presented
by the court. According to findings available to the
British “Sunday Times”, he was to be rewarded
with a new identity and 70 000 Euro annually at the
end of the trial. The British and Americans were to
share the costs. Before he became an Agent, he had
to file for bankruptcy on four occasions and his debts
amounted to about 2.5 million Euro when he was recruited.
Rupert had a lot to say before the court and he gave
details about supposed Real IRA murder plots and contacts
to Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. A mass of contradictions,
his credibility was virtually non-existent. Important
documents were withheld from the defence before the
trial commenced. The High Court dismissed the matter
on the question of relevance. When the defence were
finally given access to the documents, the chief prosecution
witness could not be cross-examined. He was unavailable.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
