Lawyers for Mr Michael McKevitt, the alleged leader of the "Real IRA", have told the High Court they "suspect very gravely" that some documents not disclosed for his trial may relate to "deals" with the FBI and possibly the US revenue authorities concerning FBI agent Mr David Rupert, the key prosecution witness against Mr McKevitt.
Mr McKevitt, Blackrock, Dundalk, Co Louth, in custody in Portlaoise prison, is charged with directing terrorism between August 29th, 1991, and March 28th, 2001, and with membership of the IRA.
The Special Criminal Court has refused an application by Mr McKevitt for disclosure of all documents, particularly material in the possession of the British security services and FBI relating to Mr Rupert's credibility.
Mr Hugh Hartnett SC, for Mr McKevitt, said the handling by the Special Criminal Court of the application for disclosure of documents has jeopardised his client's right to a fair trial in that court on February 11th. He did not want the trial to proceed until the discovery application had been properly handled. He said foreign agencies were involved in deciding what documents were relevant for a trial before an Irish court.
Mr Hartnett applied on Monday to the High Court for leave to challenge the court's decision and its handling of the discovery application. When the hearing resumed yesterday, Mr George Bermingham SC, for the DPP, told Mr Justice O'Neill his side had "bent over backwards" and was anxious that the trial proceed.
Mr Hartnett read a letter from the DPP criticising the manner in which the application for leave to challenge was presented and denying the claims regarding disclosure and alleged admissions of involvement in criminality by Mr Rupert.
The claim that the prosecution had inadvertently misled the Special Criminal Court regarding those alleged admissions was denied as "absolutely and totally untrue".
The court has heard Mr Rupert is in a witness protection programme and has received a minimum of £297,647 and $250,000 for his "services". It was also claimed the British security services had misled prosecution counsel here into a belief that there were no acknowledgements of criminality by Mr Rupert during the hearing.
Mr James McGuill, solicitor for Mr McKevitt, has said in an affidavit that certain documents furnished to the defence showed that some material relating to Mr Rupert had been edited by people in the evidence-gathering process.
Mr Hartnett said that because of what was being kept from the defence and because of the court's failure to adopt normal procedures relating to the application, his client could not get a fair trial. He said the Special Criminal Court had erred in principle and no system was in place for determining what documents should be discovered. In those circumstances, the High Court was obliged to intervene.
The hearing continues today.
