DPP's role under scrutiny
| |
Defence lawyers acting on behalf of Moloney sought discovery of RUC interview notes taken during Stobie's arrest in 1990. The notes could show whether the RUC have been in possession of all the relevant facts in relation to Stobie's account of the Finucane killing for the last nine years
|
By Laura Friel
Is the Six-County Director of Public Prosecutions still acting as an accessory after the fact? Eight years ago, the decision by the DPP to strike a deal with British agent and UDA death squad organiser Brian Nelson was seen by many as a cynical manipulation of the due process of law - a cover up, designed to curtail a trial which was set not only to expose the role of the British army in the north of Ireland but attract international political censure.
Like the proverbial cavalry, the DPP's decision came at the last moment, only hours before the trial was to open at Belfast Crown Court. Nelson pleaded guilty to a series of lesser charges. The most serious charges against Nelson, including murder, were dropped. The trial descended into farce.
A series of catastrophes (for the British) had led to Brian Nelson being brought to court in the first place. When British police chief John Stevens was sent in to investigate allegations of collusion, Nelson's British army handlers, anticipating his possible arrest, hid thousands of documents, illegally in Nelson's possession, in Palace Barracks. What they did not anticipate was that Nelson would identify himself as a British agent to the Stevens' team.
Almost a decade later, there are still those within the British establishment intent on pushing the cat back into the bag. In 1991, the DPP played a crucial damage limitation role. Last week, the onus once again fell onto the DPP, but this time in relation to William Stobie, UDA quartermaster and RUC Special Branch informer.
Earlier this year, following United Nations Special Rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy's call for an international independent inquiry, British police chief John Stevens returned to the Six Counties to investigate the Finucane murder. The most significant arrest amongst a number of recent arrests of loyalists by the Stevens' team has been that of William Stobie. Charged with murder, Stobie admits supplying the murder weapon but claims, as an informer working for RUC Special Branch, he alerted his handlers prior to the killing.
Stobie also claims he told the RUC where the murder weapon would be stashed after the shooting. Stobie says the RUC made no attempt to detain Finucane's killers, an easily identified local UDA squad, either before or after the shooting. If the parallels between Nelson and Stobie appear uncanny, the responses of the establishment have been remarkably similar too.
Nelson's role as an agent for British Military Intelligence was first exposed by documentary film makers Panorama following a series of revelations made by Nelson in his `prison diary'. Stobie, like Nelson before him, recognised his own vulnerability to prosecution. Like Nelson, he identified the media as his last line of defence.
In the early 1990s Stobie was interviewed at his own request by Tribune journalist Ed Moloney. During the interview, Stobie detailed his role as RUC Special Branch informer in relation to the Finucane killing. He also alleged `dirty tricks' by the RUC, intent on covering their own tracks. Moloney was instructed to keep the interview under raps until such a time as Stobie believed his life or liberty were being endangered. Earlier this year, that moment arrived and Moloney ran the story.
Predictably, the response of the Steven's team has been to pursue the messenger rather than address the message. Moloney was ordered to hand over his interview notes, compromising his position as a journalist and possibly putting his life in danger. Moloney is currently pursuing the issue through the court with a judicial review. The outcome is uncertain.
However, Moloney's legal challenge has once again turned the spotlight on the role of the DPP. Defence lawyers acting on behalf of Moloney sought discovery of RUC interview notes taken during Stobie's arrest in 1990. The notes could show whether the RUC have been in possession of all the relevant facts in relation to Stobie's account of the Finucane killing for the last nine years. If this was the case, there would be no reason for the Stevens' team to demand Moloney's notes and action against him would be exposed as vindictive.
The RUC documents were sought after a recent admission by a Stevens' detective during cross examination at Antrim Crown Court by Moloney's counsel. The detective admitted that Stobie had made ``admissions'' during the 1990 interviews with the RUC. This directly contradicted earlier assertions by the authorities that there had been no admissions by Stobie at that time.
The prospect of Moloney's lawyers gaining access to these RUC notes appears to have caused considerable consternation. The Stevens' team was considering requesting a gagging order (Public Interest Immunity Certificate) before a High Court ruling turned down the lawyers' request. It is now believed that lawyers acting for Stobie have obtained the documents, although there is speculation that the records have been censored.
According to Moloney, in what can only be described as a remarkable move, last week the DPP wrote to Stobie's lawyers strongly objecting to any plans by Stobie to hand over the interview records. Once again, the DPP appears to have been called upon to step into the breach.
The public focus upon the role of the DPP in relation to the Finucane conspiracy comes at a particularly sensitive time. A Criminal Justice Review, a kind of low-key Patten report on the functioning of the judicial system in the north, is currently in the pipeline. Significantly, the review is to question the independence of the prosecution system, particularly in relation to security and intelligence agencies and the accountability of the DPP.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)