The following statement by Mr Justice Peter Kelly was issued last night through the Courts Service Information Office.

Camara V the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors

In today's (October 3rd) issue of the Irish Times, Mr Fintan O'Toole comments on a judgment which I delivered on the 26th July, 2000 on the above case. The article seriously misrepresents the judgment. Not merely that, but it purports to quote verbatim a statement from the judgment which is nowhere to be found in it.

Mr O'Toole says: "In his ruling Mr Justice Kelly says that `evidence as to the conditions in prison (in Guinea), contrary to the applicant's evidence to the authority, suggested a mild regime.' " That does not appear anywhere in the judgment nor did I so find.

I did not hold that there was "a comparatively mild regime" in existence in the prisons of Guinea. It was Mr Camara the applicant who made precisely that assertion describing a diet of rice and fish, incell toilets and outside showers as having been enjoyed by him whilst in prison in Guinea. That description was wholly at odds with the finding of the Appeals Authority which described the Guinea regime as "amongst the worst in any country that (it) has seen described." This was but one of a number of matters in respect of which the Appeals Authority found Mr Camara not to be credible.

Mr Camara did not fail in his application because of any alleged finding by me that the prison regime in Guinea was a "comparatively mild one". I made no such finding.

The other selective quotations from the judgment pertaining to the physical abuse were not findings made by the Court. They were extracted from that part of the judgment which set out the findings made by the Appeals Authority.

Mr Camara's application was for judicial review and was not an appeal from the Appeals Authority. I held that the Authority was entitled to conclude, as it did, that Mr Camara's claim was unjustified, not merely in relation to the two matters alluded to by Mr O'Toole but also because of numerous other items of information given by the applicant which could justify a finding that his testimony was incredible. At no stage did I decide that "torture (was) not grounds for asylum here" as the article alleges. To suggest that I did so is totally false and gravely wrong.

Fintan O'Toole writes: My comments were made on the basis of the Irish Times Law Report of September 25th 2000. If that report was inaccurate, as is now apparent, I am happy to accept Mr Justice Kelly's statement.