New Events


no events posted in last week

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Erdogan?s Karmic Trap Wed Jan 17, 2018 13:39 | The Saker
by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker blog The security zone America intends to establish in Syria is doomed to fail sooner or later. How can this assertion be made and

offsite link Scott?s answer to an email from a Grid Dymanics employee Wed Jan 17, 2018 13:33 | The Saker
by Scott Humor After my research Grid Dynamics connects wars in Ukraine and Syria with Soros? Open Russia, Sobchak and snipers in Saratov was published, I received a reply from

offsite link Democrat Says Americans Owe Nazis for Suffering and Gives ISIS Eulogy on C-SPAN Wed Jan 17, 2018 13:08 | The Saker
by GH Eliason for the Saker blog Can you believe it? 2018 is the year of the NAZI snowflake! They whine, cry, and they still kill innocent people. They also

offsite link North Korea ? an Agent of Peace? Wed Jan 17, 2018 00:02 | The Saker
by Peter Koenig for the Saker blog The false alarm on a ballistic missile attack on Hawaii last Saturday from North Korea did not help the Peace Talks which were

offsite link Syrian War Report ? January 16, 2018: Syrian Army Repelling HTS and ISIS Attacks In Eastern Idlib Tue Jan 16, 2018 20:05 | Scott The situation in estern Idlib is rapidly becoming more and more complicated for government forces as both ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) are simultaneously pressuring the Syrian Arab

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland

offsite link Shifting Sands Under the Abortion Debate Mon Jan 15, 2018 09:30 | GuestPost

offsite link Liberty, the ICCL, and other NGO groups? landmark challenge against the UK Government?s mass surveil... Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:56 | admin

offsite link What Ireland can gain from international guidance on Article 19 UNCRPD Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:53 | Eilionoir Flynn

offsite link Repeal or Replace? Tue Oct 03, 2017 06:31 | Fiona de Londras

offsite link An Abortion Law Immune from Constitutional Review? Thu Sep 28, 2017 20:14 | Fiona de Londras

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Cedar Lounge
For lefties too stubborn to quit

offsite link 8th Amendment Oireachtas Debates 18:16 Wed Jan 17, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link A trail of destruction in the wake of Trump 11:09 Wed Jan 17, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link First amongst outsiders? and who asked Norway about Norwegian status for the UK? 09:30 Wed Jan 17, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link What you want to say ? 17th January, 2018 02:04 Wed Jan 17, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Optimism. Great optimism? 11:06 Tue Jan 16, 2018 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

Dublin Opinion
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting

offsite link Some Thoughts on the Brexit Joint Report 11:50 Sat Dec 09, 2017


offsite link Notes for a Book on Money and the Irish State - The Marshall Aid Program 15:10 Sat Apr 02, 2016

offsite link The Financial Crisis:What Have We Learnt? 19:58 Sat Aug 29, 2015

offsite link Money in 35,000 Words or Less 21:34 Sat Aug 22, 2015

Dublin Opinion >>

Michael McKevitt Case - Double Miscarriage of Justice

category international | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis author Tuesday June 14, 2011 23:46author by I. Greene Report this post to the editors

It is central tenet of any adversarial system that a defendant has the right to challenge any fact alleged against him. The right to mount such a challenge must be exercised in a way that is meaningful. At the heart of the common law system is the right to confront ones accusers and challenge them by way of cross examination as outlined by Judge Orie at the International Criminal Court in Le Hague in June 2011. This right had been set at nought in the Omagh civil case and resulted in the second miscarriage of justice against Michael McKevitt.

Friday 3rd June at the opening of the International Criminal Court of Ratko Mladic in Le Hague, Judge Orie outlined the charges against the Serbian General. Included in his opening remarks the Judge reminded Mr Mladic that it was his right to examine or have examined all witnesses against him in his forthcoming trial. His remark prompted me to reflect back to the recent Miscarriage of Justice seminar held in Queens University Belfast three weeks earlier. The seminar dealt exclusively with the case of republican Michael McKevitt who was convicted in Dublins non-jury Special Criminal Court in 2003. The clear suggestion emanating from those in attendance was that Mr McKevitts trial in 2003 and the subsequent civil case stood firmly within the category of miscarriage of justice. Those who followed the case will recall how Mr McKevitts conviction relied exclusively on a prosecution witness David Rupert who was paid a massive financial inducement to testify at the trial. Although the 2003 trial was not connected to the Omagh bombing the evidence from that trial was used against McKevitt in the Omagh civil case in Belfast. Mr Rupert refused to give evidence to the civil case but the court relied exclusively on his evidence from the Dublin trial, thus denying Mr McKevitt the right to examine or have examined all witness against him in the Omagh civil case.

The case of Michael McKevitt for obvious reasons appears to prick the minds of so many people within legal circles, even all these years later. I was always of the opinion that the trial in 2003 of Michael McKevitt was one of the most blatant injustices in recent years and how the evidence from that trial was used to shore up the Omagh civil case is just mind-boggling. I am not at all surprised almost 10 years later that some young law students are examining the McKevitt case again. I came away from the seminar not just convinced but firmly of the opinion that this was now a double Miscarriage of Justice.

Queens University seminar

Dr Vicky Conway (QUB) outlined many similar cases including that of Nicky Kelly and the Birmingham Six case of injustices and the remedy open to miscarriage of justice. Human rights group British Irish Rights Watch claimed that Mr McKevitt had not received a fair trial in 2003.
Solicitor Peter Corrigan (Belfast) claimed that the main prosecution witness in McKevitts trial was paid upwards of five million dollars in his evidence and wasnt a credible witness by any stretch of the imagination. The seminar also heard that the judges in both the 2003 trial and the 2008 Omagh civil case conceded that Rupert, the main prosecution witness, was someone with a shady past. Mr Corrigan also pointed out that A proper legal system where verdicts are reached by evidence is needed not a witch-hunt. Mr Corrigan concluded that he had no doubt McKevitts sentence would be overturned by the European Court.
Michael McKevitts wife Bernadette was also in attendance and outlined the details of the case against her husband who she described as a political hostage. The evidence was outlined in graphic detail and can only be described as horrifying. She identified and outlined what she called the facts of the stictch-up against her husband including how the Gardai contradicted themselves on a Rupert file which they had in their possession but said that there wasnt one. It was alleged in Ruperts statement to the Gardai that he had attended an IRA Army Council meeting and Michael was present, yet a Garda surveillance report revealed that they observed Michael on the same date and time at a completely different location. That Garda report was withheld from the defence only to be disclosed on day 22 into the trial and after Rupert had left the jurisdiction, according to Bernadette. The charge of directing terrorism was introduced in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in 1998 and apart from Michael McKevitt it has not been used against anyone else since.

Many legal aspects to McKevitts conviction do not make good law and that is the reason why it keeps being revisited by people who view it as one of the most controversial Miscarriages of Justice in recent times. Many from the legal profession will say that from the outset of the 2003 Dublin trial the issue of non-disclosure of material,l which would have assisted the defence, ultimately cast a huge shadow over the conviction. The non-disclosure of material was clearly in violation of the Strasbourg case law on the equality of arms principle on the pre-trial and trial disclosure of evidence as set out in the European Commissions decision in Jespers v Belgium (1981).

Conflicting Garda Evidence

During the 2003 trial, the defence was anxious to obtain all the material outlining the relationship between An Garda Siochana, and David Rupert the main prosecution witness. Unfortunately, the defence was disadvantaged after being informed by the Garda that there was not a single document in existence recording Ruperts dealings with Chief Superintendent Jennings (Ruperts Garda handler.
In 2008 during the cross examination of Chief Superintendent Jennings in the civil case, he told the court that a file on Rupert had been retained by the Irish police from as early as 1996. This evidence was a clear contradiction of earlier evidence given by a senior Garda Martin Callinan (now Commissioner) during a pre-trial hearing in October 2002. Mr Callinan told the court on that occasion that the Gardai retained no file or other documentation on David Rupert. Calinans evidence revealed a clear contradiction between the two senior Garda officers and one of the most disturbing revelations throughout the case.

Other disturbing information emerged in 2008 during an investigation by Mr McKevitts defence team in the Omagh civil case. Mr Peter Corrigan (defence solicitor) interviewed 4 senior police officers from the Messena area in Upstate New York. Each of the police officers highlighted a number of conflicts with Ruperts testimony to the trial court in Dublin and each one identified him as being an untrustworthy person who had been involved in criminality all his adult life. They also confirmed that he had been a snitch from 1974 after offering his services in exchange for non-prosecution in a number of fraud cases which Rupert had denied during evidence in 2003. It is alarming to note how the New York Police officers confirmed in their statements that they had not been asked by the FBI or the Gardai to give evidence in the Dublin trial in 2003.
However, what is even more bizarre about the New York Police officers statements was how such information was not uncovered by McKevitts legal team in the lead up to the 2003 trial. One can only suggest at this point in time that something was seriously amiss throughout every aspect of the McKevitt trial in 2003 including the contribution from his own defence team.

Jurisdictional issue

The unfairness in relation to disclosure issues was not exclusive to the 2003 trial. Before the trial took place in 2002 during a disclosure application at Dublins Special Criminal Court, Senior Council for MI5, Simon Dennison QC and the FBI representative James Krupkowski both confirmed that they had not reviewed all material pertaining to David Rupert. Here was another clear contravention of Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention obligation that all potentially relevant material be disclosed to the defendant. Once again the defendant was disadvantaged by the different jurisdictional issue in which, the main prosecution witness operated as an informer. To ensure fairness and equality of arms principles as in any criminal trial, the judge should have directed during the trial that Ruperts evidence would not be admissible until all relevant material on his credibility was disclosed to the defence. Even though he had no inherent jurisdiction to direct the American Authorities and the British Authorities to disclose the material, the judge had the ultimate sanction of stating that he would not rely on the evidence until all such material was made available to the defence.

Other important evidence wasnt served on the defendant until the main prosecution witness David Rupert had completed his evidence and had left the jurisdiction. The late disclosure of the material included a Garda surveillance report showing McKevitt was at his home at the time and date when Rupert said that he was in attendance at a meeting in Greenore on 17 February 2000. It also included an email dated 17 February 2000 which also contradicted Ruperts evidence (The email was disclosed from the outset). The Garda surveillance report makes it clear that Mat Mr Mckevitt didnt attend an Army Council meeting in Greenore. This was marked contrast to the statement that he had provided the prosecution authorities for the purposes of court. (The statement clearly said that McKevitt attended and said certain things. The Garda surveillance report was only disclosed on Day 22 in the trail). At the outset of the trial when the defence highlighted the conflicts in the email and the statement the prosecution said that the statement was correct. This assertion misled the defence and damaged the defence preparations. The email dated 17th February 2000 illustrates the dangers of relying upon untested documents, which may have the appearance of authenticity. The detail in the actual email looked convincing until it was examined in conjunction with the Garda surveillance logs on that day. It is similar to another email to David Rupert which appears to be written on 19th October 1999 but when one reads the content it is referring to an event that is in the future which is to happen on 18th September 2000.

The FBI Material

The defendant attempted to obtain material from the FBI outlining the relationship that they had with their agent David Rupert. The FBI refused to disclose material voluntarily in the case. However, the defendant attempted to obtain the material by invoking an application under the Hague Convention. The FBI responded to the application refusing to deal in any substantive way with the queries raised. The main point of objection centred upon Ruperts rights to privacy. In the circumstances, such a stance is, incredulous, bearing in mind the nature of the allegation faced by Mr McKevitt.

It also outlined that the defendant Mr McKevitt went to exhaustive lengths to attempt to obtain material from the different organisations that would assist his defence and at every stage he was prevented from obtaining this material.

Omagh Civil Case

Despite the fact that David Rupert gave evidence at the trial in Dublin without any logistical difficulty, he didnt give evidence at the civil trial in Belfast. The offer of giving evidence by video link from the US was also turned down by Mr Rupert the main prosecution witness, thus avoiding subjecting himself to cross-examination. Mr McKevitts Article 6 Rights were again undermined by the Judges Ruling that the seriousness of the case didnt merit the proceedings being made equivalent to criminal proceedings. This Ruling was very important because in civil proceedings the defendant doesnt have the right to effectively cross examine the main witness against them, whereas in criminal proceedings he or she would.
It is central tenet of any adversarial system that a defendant has the right to challenge any fact alleged against him. The right to mount such a challenge must be exercised in a way that is meaningful. At the heart of the common law system is the right to confront ones accusers and challenge them by way of cross examination as outlined by Judge Orie at the International Criminal Court in Le Hague in June 2011. This right had been set at nought in the Omagh civil case and resulted in the second miscarriage of justice against Michael McKevitt.

The only conclusion that could be drawn from Mr Ruperts non-cooperation in the civil case was out of concern that any cross-examination in the case would not have stood the test and would have led to the overturning of Mr McKevitts 2003 conviction and the ultimate collapse of the Omagh civil case against him.

© 2001-2018 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy