A television producer was challenged in the High Court in London yesterday over his assessment of the credibility of witnesses he used in a documentary alleging collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries.
Mr Sean McPhilemy was asked to explain alleged inconsistencies in the accounts given by his main source of information, Mr James Sands. He was also cross-examined about another witness, Mr Eddie Quinn, who the court heard was picked up as a hitchhiker by the programme's researcher which led to Mr Quinn telling him he was a liaison man who passed on information which led to killings.
Mr McPhilemy is suing the Sunday Times for alleged libel following an article in May 1993 which claimed the programme, broadcast on Channel 4 on October 2nd, 1991, was a hoax. The newspaper is standing over its claim and pleads justification.
The court was told Mr Sands gave preliminary interviews on audiotape to the researcher and then gave filmed accounts, extracts from which were used in the programme.
Mr Andrew Caldecott QC, for the newspaper, said that Channel 4 was not given the audiotaped interviews which contained inconsistencies with the later videos that were shown to the station's executives. He listed 27 points which he claimed illustrated inconsistencies between the audio- and videotapes about murders of Catholics and a murder attempt on Sinn Fein councillor Mr Brendan Curran. Mr Sands alleged the murders were the result of collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries.
Mr Caldecott said: "I suggest the list clearly shows the key importance of the audiotapes in assessing Mr Sands's credibility as a witness." Mr McPhilemy said he agreed the information on the tapes was important in assessing his credibility. Asked if he was quite sure Channel 4 was aware of all the problems on the tapes, Mr McPhilemy said executives were aware of a very considerable number of them and they were weighed and assessed.
Mr Caldecott put it to Mr McPhilemy that there was a "thumping inconsistency" in the accounts Mr Sands gave of the murder attempt on Mr Curran. Mr Curran had also given his own account, which varied from that of Mr Sands. Mr McPhilemy said they were aware of it and had discussed it.