SAOIRSE32

Irish Examiner

By Caroline O’Doherty
18 December 2006

NO decisions on charges against suspects investigated for money-laundering as part of the probe into the Northern Bank raid are expected for another year.

As the second anniversary of the £26.5 million (€39m) Belfast robbery approaches this Wednesday, it has emerged the garda file on the investigation only went to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in recent weeks.

One of the biggest files compiled by gardaí, it runs to over 10 volumes and many thousands of pages of witness statements, surveillance reports and forensic data.

It focuses on five individuals whom detectives believe were involved in attempts to launder the stolen money through businesses in the south and various investment channels.

Some media reports earlier this year incorrectly stated that the file was already with the DPP, whose task it is to decide which suspects, if any, should be charged and with what offences.

Superintendent Kevin Donohue of the Garda Press Office, however, said work on the file had only recently been completed by gardaí and that there was still information being sought from their counterparts in the North.

“I can confirm that a substantial file has been submitted to the DPP a number of weeks ago and that within that file the gardaí have made recommendations in respect of a number of people, and that a number of inquiries remain outstanding with the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) and are being dealt with within the mutual assistance agreements,” Supt Donohue said.

Any additional information received from the PSNI will be added to the files already with the DPP who is not expected to be in a position to conclude his deliberations until well into the latter half of next year.

An IRA gang of up to 30 members is believed to have been responsible for the raid on December 20, 2004, but despite garda and PSNI investigations, just three people have been charged in the North in connection with the robbery and they have not yet been sent forward for trial.

In the Republic, one man is awaiting trial but only on a charge of membership of the IRA. No one has been charged with what gardaí believe was a highly sophisticated attempt to launder the stolen money.

Less than £3m (€4m) of the money is believed to have been recovered.

Irish Examiner

By Shaun Connolly, Political Correspondent
18 December 2006

TÁNAISTE and Justice Minister Michael McDowell insisted “Provos” were not involved in Dublin’s gangland warfare ahead of today’s crisis summit with the Taoiseach and garda chiefs on the murder feud.

The minister rejected claims IRA gunmen were implicated in the spate of execution-style killings as he again accused judges of being soft on suspected offenders seeking bail.

The charge provoked Labour leader Pat Rabbitte to warn the minister was risking a “constitutional crisis” with his attacks on the judiciary.

“There are a few people who did associate on the fringe of the Provos who’ve been involved in recent gangland activity, that’s true,” Mr McDowell told Today FM.

“But that is not the same as saying the Provos are getting back into crime. If I thought for a moment that was the case, I would hot foot it down to the Taoiseach and we would go public and bring it to the attention of the public.”

The top level “gangland” summit was called to concentrate on three key issues — deployment of resources, speeding up the trial process and tightening bail procedures — before tomorrow’s full Cabinet meeting.

The move follows fears of a gang feud “bloodbath” in the wake of the execution-style slaying of crime boss Martin “Marlo” Hyland last Tuesday.

In one of Ireland’s bloodiest weeks for years, six people were killed in six days, including apprentice plumber Anthony Campbell who happened to be working in the house where Hyland was hiding out when the gunman struck.

Mr McDowell continued his fierce attacks on the judiciary by again hitting out at judges for over-ruling garda objections to bail applications, despite claims some associates of Hyland were bailed with the consent of gardaí.

Mr Rabbitte criticised Mr McDowell’s onslaught against the judiciary.

“Three times within the past week, the minister launched intemperate attacks on the judiciary in an effort to divert attention away from his own dismal record. He announced special high-level meetings to take special but unspecified measures to deal with the crisis — a crisis he says arises from the judges’ failure to apply the law as enacted by the people in the bail referendum.

“It seems now that the minister embarked on a near constitutional crisis, by targeting the judges for sustained attack and accusing them of reneging on their duty to apply the Constitution and the law, while totally ignoring the true facts of the situation.

“It is difficult to believe that the minister could have been unaware about the facts surrounding these bail applications. If he knew there were 24 cases involving the Hyland gang and that bail was granted in 23 of them, he must have known in how many cases the gardaí were opposed to bail. If the guards did not oppose bail in court, there is no reason at all why bail should not have been granted by the courts,” he said.

BBC

Former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party Lord Trimble will not be standing in the forthcoming elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

David Trimble has been elevated to the House of Lords

The move, confirmed by the party, was expected following his elevation to the House of Lords earlier this year.

Mr Trimble was Northern Ireland’s only first minister. He was leader of the Ulster Unionist Party for 10 years from 1995.

The next assembly elections are due to take place on 7 March.

Mr Trimble won a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

He stepped down as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, after losing his Westminster seat in Upper Bann in the 2005 general election.

In total, the Ulster Unionist Party lost four of its seats in the poll.

BBC

The Orange Order in Portadown has confirmed it is prepared to enter face-to-face talks with nationalist residents of Garvaghy Road.

Parades at Drumcree have been peaceful for the past three years

The move marks a significant change in policy for the lodge which previously refused to talk to residents.

Residents objected to Portadown Orange men using Garvaghy Road on their return journey from Drumcree church each July.

A spokesman for the order said it was prepared to “enter a mediation process with an independent chairman”.

In a statement, the spokesman said: “Portadown District has always been willing to find a solution to the Garvaghy Road problem.

“We have intimated by letter to the Parades Commission that we are willing to enter a mediation process with an independent chairman.

‘Indication’

“No meetings have taken place, but we are awaiting developments.”

A spokesman for Garvaghy Road residents said they had received an indication from the Parades Commission of the possibility of dialogue and were awaiting confirmation.

The Portadown Orange Lodge has not marched along Garvaghy Road since 1998 following determinations by the Parades Commission.

Each July, the Portadown Orange Lodge attends a service at Drumcree church to commemorate the anniversary of the Battle of the Somme.

The parade has been marked by serious violence in the past, but it has passed off peacefully in the last three years.

The Parades Commission was set up in 1997 to make decisions on whether controversial parades should be restricted.

The Orange Institution is the largest loyal order in Northern Ireland.

Its origins date from the 17th century battle for supremacy between Protestantism and Catholicism. Prince William of Orange, originally of the Netherlands, led the fight against Catholic King James.

Pat Finucane Centre

The BBC Radio 4 Today Programme is running a Christmas Repeal campaign. It is asking the public to nominate the most unhelpful or damaging piece of legislation for repeal. A panel of experts will draw up a shortlist of six, and then the public will be asked to vote.

This is an ideal opportunity to draw attention to the Inquiries Act 2005, which to all intents and purposes abolished independent public inquiries. You can register your nomination by going to www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/2006vote.

It would be great if as many people as possible could nominate the Inquiries Act for repeal. You can either use the BIRW arguments, or set out your own objections, or if you have been denied the right to a public inquiry, you can mention your own case. By so doing, you will be helping to draw attention to the Act, which very few people seem to be aware of, and perhaps helping people like the family of murdered Belfast lawyer Patrick Finucane to get a proper inquiry.

Please feel free to forward this message to your own networks.

Suggested text:

I would like to nominate the Inquiries Act 2005 for repeal.

In June 2005, when the Act came into force, the independent public inquiry as we know it ceased to exist. If in the future people should want a fully independent inquiry, free from government interference, into, for example, a train crash, a fire in a football stadium, the mishandling of an epidemic like bird flu, the shooting of an innocent man in an anti-terrorist operation, the poisoning by radiation of a British citizen by a foreign power, or the death of Princess Diana in a car crash, they will find that such an inquiry is simply not available.

The Inquiries Act has brought about a fundamental shift in the manner in which the actions of government and public bodies can be subjected to scrutiny in the United Kingdom. The powers of independent chairs to control inquiries has been usurped and those powers have been placed in the hands of government Ministers. The Minister:

- decides whether there should be an inquiry

- sets its terms of reference

- can amend its terms of reference

- appoints its members

- can restrict public access to inquiries

- can prevent the publication of evidence placed before an inquiry

- can prevent the publication of the inquiry’s report

- can suspend or terminate an inquiry

- can withhold the costs of any part of an inquiry which strays beyond the terms of reference set by the Minister.

Parliament’s role has been reduced to that of the passive recipient of information about inquiries, whereas under the previous legislation reports of public inquiries were made to Parliament. Now, not only is there no guarantee that any inquiry will be public, but inquiry reports will go to the Minister.

The Minister’s role is particularly troubling where the actions of that Minister or those of his or her department, or those of the government, are in question. In effect, the state will be investigating itself. In my view, that is a backwards step for democracy and accountability and the Act should go.