Grave Injustice

national | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis Tuesday August 28, 2007 09:12 by T. H. Ledwidge

The conviction of Michael McKevitt was far from the finest hour of our judicial system. The latest revelations leaves no doubt that he was unfairly tried and convicted through the pages of the print media long before he appeared in Court. Under such circumstances, the media and Mr Mooney in particular must have the moral courage to undo the damage done in this case.

Upon reading an article by I. Greene on Indymedia (6th August 2007), I was prompted to look up a related Sunday Times article (5th August 2007) by reporter John Mooney. Both articles throw up startling questions about Michael McKevitt’s conviction, the Omagh civil case and media reporting.

I know very little on the background of Mr McKevitt or indeed the Omagh civil case, but what I have read in these articles startled me. Within days of reading these articles, an excellent article by Colm Heatley appeared in the Sunday Business Post 12th August 2007, also covering the Omagh bomb tragedy. The article went into detail on what the journalist described as a cover-up in the Omagh investigation. It also made an amazing reference to the informer David Rupert which I found particularly startling:

“…David Rupert, an FBI agent with a chequered past, who infiltrated the RIRA, was given a $1million indemnity arising from any case connected with the attack…”.

This comment in conjunction with the other articles by Mooney and Green really disturbed me to such an extent that I felt I should make the following observations.

The name of Michael McKevitt was widely reported through numerous print media outlets for many years. It is well documented that he was convicted on the word of a paid FBI/MI5 informant for being leader of Real I.R.A for which he received a 20-year sentence. The significant thing about the Sunday Business Post article was that Rupert was prepared to testify in any case and against anyone for a sum of $1million. Clearly, this type of inducement evidence should never have been relied upon to secure any conviction. Evidently, McKevitt was an easy target, as he had already been deemed guilty through the print media for many years long before the Omagh attack.

Previously I would not have paid much attention to this type of article until I read the Sunday Times story titled “Silent Witnesses”. I then read some associated articles and they disturbed me deeply. The initial Sunday Times article swayed me to believe that McKevitt’s conviction is at very least highly questionable and at most a miscarriage injustice. However, the combined content of the articles have convinced me that this case should be reopened. Either way, the circumstances surrounding his conviction would not instil confidence in a justice system, which delivered such an unconvincing verdict as in this case.

Mr Mooney makes a number of interesting but alarming points about the Omagh civil case, he states:

“..McKevitt lodged papers with the High Court in Belfast declaring his intention to defend himself and took everyone by surprise…”

I would have thought that it was a natural reaction for an accused to defend himself. Mr McKevitt like everyone else is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is also entitled to equality of arms but to date it would appear he has been denied these very basic rights in both cases. However, Mooney’s article appears to suggest that McKevitt should not be entitled to defend himself. An uncontested civil case would return an uncontested judgment against McKevitt. It would falsely create the impression that McKevitt was guilty even though the authorities by their own admission contend that they have no evidence against him. If there is no evidence available in the civil case against Mr McKevitt, under the law of natural justice he has no case to answer. It seems that all the evidence against him is hearsay, innuendo and nothing concrete.

Other disturbing comments contained in the articles reveal that the Gardai and MI5 were running informers inside the RIRA at the time of the Omagh bombing. This contention raises very important questions, which need clear and truthful answers. It is also suggested that a cover-up took place and McKevitt has been used as a convenient scapegoat. Most of the Omagh families are now convinced that the British and Irish authorities are involved in a cover-up and are calling for an independent inquiry but to date it has been denied.

The Sunday Times article reports that some lawyers say that it is impossible to connect McKevitt to the Omagh bombing because there is no evidence to back it up. However, the most startling comment contained in the report suggests that McKevitt was never the leader of the RIRA. This is an astonishing revelation by a journalist (Mooney) who on numerous occasions reported through various media outlets that McKevitt was the so-called chief-of-staff of the ‘Real’ IRA. Now he is clearly saying that McKevitt was never the leader of the RIRA.

The I. Greene article on Indymedia concluded by suggesting that a stitch-up is emerging in the case of Michael McKevitt. After careful study of all these articles, I am also of the opinion that an injustice has taken place in this case. The conviction of Michael McKevitt was far from the finest hour of our judicial system. The latest revelations leaves no doubt that he was unfairly tried and convicted through the pages of the print media long before he appeared in Court. Under such circumstances, the media and Mr Mooney in particular must have the moral courage to undo the damage done in this case.

END