Mons. Murray calls for the overturn of conviction of Michael McKevitt

national | rights, freedoms and repression | news report Monday August 14, 2006 22:27 by Political Hostage - Michael McKevitt Justice Campaign

“Consequences of accepting evidence from paid informants is very serious”

The full address of Father Raymond Murray at the recent Human Rights Forum in Belfast

"This pamphlet by Marcella Sands entitled The Framing of Michael McKevitt is disturbing. For me it is a strong argument for the legal innocence of Michael McKevitt on the charge of directing the activities of an illegal organisation and membership of the same organisation, namely the Real IRA.

Its portrayal of the injustice of his trial in a special court is a familiar one to me. I co-authored similar cases and situations in pamphlets like corruption of Law in 1974 (a memorandum to the Gardiner Committee on the working of emergency legislation in Northern ireland), The Birmingham Framework published in 1977, one year after the trial and condemnation of six innocent men and British Justice is Flawed written in 1988, in which Father Faul and I examined the ways in which people suspected of political influence are treated in England and the lack of safeguards that existed and one could say still exists there.

Of course, this very same unjust treatment of political suspects and lack of safeguards is what is argued by Marcella Sands in the case of Michael McKevitt. One calls to mind also the IRSP pamphlet Framed through the Special Court: The ‘Great Train Robbery’ Trial. Has the Irish state not learned a lesson to be scrupulous in protecting its institutions of justice?

The first question: Were those who belonged to the 32 County Sovereignty Movement entitled to voice their political views on a sovereign 32 county Irish state? Bernadette Sands-McKevitt was a founder member. Did that mean she was linked to the Real IRA, a link forged by media speculation and encouraged by state political view? She disagreed with the Good Friday Agreement. Was she entitled to have such an opinion in a free democratic state? Media wise and in state commentary, Michael McKevitt’s name was linked with the Real IRA and then automatically, in speculation, of participation in the Omagh bombing. Neither Michael nor Bernadette McKevitt have been questioned or arrested by the police for the Omagh bombing.
Will the media redress its culpability in naming Michael McKevitt as a perpetrator of the Omagh bombing? This shocking atrocity is surrounded by unanswered questions regarding the foreknowledge of the bombing on the part of MI5 and the Special Branch of the then RUC. Why does the secretary of state Peter Hain, who I am sure has access to all the papers of the state, not help to reveal the truth of the whole Omagh tragedy by giving independent legal people access to all the documentary resources?

The policy “public interest and national security”, proclaimed by the British Attorney General Sir Patrick Mayhew, in 1988, in preventing the prosecution of some RUC officers in respect of ‘Shoot to Kill’ cases in County Armagh, is reflected again and again in a cover-up to protect RUC members, MI5 and their informants. There is a state determination not to reveal the details of RUC and MI5 informants who were mixed up in deadly crime.

Has a philosophy of “public interest and national security” spilled into the Irish Republic in a policy of taking short cuts to suppress subversion and political crime? Has this affected the Garda Síochána?

The activity of the Garda Emergency Response Unit as depicted in this pamphlet is shocking.

It amounts to harassment and persecution of the McKevitt family, parents and children, and visitors to their house.

Why was this tolerated by the Garda authority in a region which still reverberates from Garda neglect in the investigation of the murder of Séamus Ludlow on 1 May 1976? This is damaging to society.

Can action still not be taken against Gardaí who were involved in the severe harassment of the McKevitts, which in itself cast suspicion on them?
Were their official complaints just ignored and what does that say about people’s protection?

Who were the Gardaí responsible for the release to the media of Michael McKevitt’s photograph, taken while he was in custody and why have they not been investigated for endangering his life?

Central to this pamphlet is the story of the use of the highly paid informant David Rupert by the FBI, MI5 and Gardaí and the acceptance of his evidence by the courts, evidence that was often contradictory.

The fundamental purpose of law is to protect the right to life and the liberty of the citizen from the arbitrary tyrant or despot – only secondarily does it protect the citizen from the lawbreakers among themselves.

This supergrass double-agent system is a perversion of justice and destructive law precisely because it removes the final and most important shield of protection from citizens.

Evidence of paid and schooled informants resembles the basis for internment where persons were put into jail on the suspicion, prejudice or dislike of anonymous state agents. In this supergrass system a person can be jailed for a long period on the uncorroborated evidence of a person of dubious character.

Judges are gravely at fault in accepting supergrass evidence.

The recruitment of supergrasses makes their subsequent evidence unreliable, their character being smeared with money rewards and promises of more money.

The social and political consequences of accepting the evidence of long term paid informants like David Rupert are very serious and long lasting.
Confidence in the domestic courts is lost and now the McKevitt case must seek justice in the European Commission and court at Strasbourg.

A false illusion is created in this case that indirectly justice is being done for the victims of the Omagh atrocity and their families.
False. This is a short-term gain and a long-term loss.
To read this pamphlet leaves one with a serious question. Is the administration of law in Michael McKevitt’s case, based on a paid informant’s evidence, impartial?

Marcella Sands also argues strongly that MI5, FBI and special police investigators have been selective in the production of documentary evidence.
Another serious question – is this administration of law impartial that is backed by the selected information of secret societies like MI5, FBI and special investigators who work in a murky world?

The answer is no. In Michael McKevitt’s case the law is crawling in humble submission before the will of state and the media to condemn.
Alas for the rights of man, for justice, for fair play."