A High Court application by Mr Michael McKevitt, the alleged leader of the "Real IRA", is not an effort to ensure he receives a fair trial but is really an attempt to prevent him from ever being tried, counsel for the DPP said yesterday.
Mr George Bermingham SC, for the DPP, said it would be "a negation of democracy" were Mr McKevitt not to be tried.
He was opposing an application by Mr McKevitt for leave to challenge, in High Court judicial review proceedings, a decision by the Special Criminal Court refusing further disclosure of documents relating to an FBI agent, Mr David Rupert, the main witness against Mr McKevitt in his forthcoming trial, fixed for February 11th before the non-jury court.
The prosecution has met all its disclosure obligations in full, "warts and all", counsel added. The Special Criminal Court had fully and carefully considered the matter in a four-day hearing and delivered a reserved judgment.
The hearing of the application for leave to overturn that decision concluded yesterday after three days. Mr Justice O'Neill reserved judgment and said he hoped to deliver his decision on January 13th.
Mr McKevitt (51), with an address at Blackrock, Dundalk, Co Louth, but currently in custody in Portlaoise Prison, is the first person in the State to be charged with the new offence of directing terrorism.
He is charged with directing terrorism between August 29th, 1991, and March 28th, 2001, and also with membership of an unlawful organisation, the Irish Republican Army, otherwise the IRA, otherwise Óglaigh na hÉireann.
The main prosecution witness against Mr McKevitt is Mr Rupert. The SCC 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 the credibility of Mr Rupert.
Seeking leave to challenge that refusal, Mr Hugh Hartnett SC, for Mr McKevitt, has told Mr Justice O'Neill he is not seeking to prohibit the trial but did want to prevent the trial proceeding until the discovery application had been properly handled.
This case was exceptional, extraordinary and unique in that foreign agencies were involved in deciding what documents were relevant for a trial before an Irish court, he argued.
Yesterday Mr Bermingham urged the judge to refuse leave. He said extensive documentation had been disclosed to the defence, including material which adversely reflected on Mr Rupert.
Among the documents was material showing that Mr Rupert was keenly interested in cash for the role he was playing. He has been quoted as saying that, in his interest to acquire money, he was "a whore". The defence had also got a document which was an assessment of the reliability of Mr Rupert by members of the Garda, FBI and British Security Services.
Counsel said no document in the possession or power of procurement of the DPP was being withheld which would assist the defence in either mounting a positive case of their own or in undermining the prosecution case. The prosecution could not disclose what it did not have.
The prosecution was also prepared to disclose material over and above what was stricly relevant, counsel added. Those documents had been subject to editing, and it was the prosecution's view that there was nothing there relevant in accordance with the criteria established by the courts in the Paul Ward case.
Mr Bermingham said the prosecution was prepared for the court to read all the documents available to the prosecution if the court wished to do so.
