Way cleared for McKevitt trial

A High Court judge yesterday cleared the way for the trial of Michael McKevitt, the alleged leader of the "Real IRA", to proceed before the non-jury Special Criminal Court on February 11th.

Mr Justice O'Neill refused leave to Mr McKevitt to take judicial review proceedings challenging a decision refusing further disclosure of documents relating to FBI agent David Rupert, the main witness against him in his forthcoming trial.

Mr McKevitt has the option to appeal against the High Court refusal to the Supreme Court and his lawyers said they were considering that. However, the Supreme Court is likely to facilitate an early hearing of the appeal and, if Mr McKevitt is again unsuccessful, his trial will proceed as scheduled.

Mr McKevitt (51), in Portlaoise Prison, is the first person in the State to be charged with the offence of directing terrorism.

After a four-day hearing last year, the court refused an application by Mr McKevitt for further disclosure of documents, particularly material in the possession of the British Security Services and FBI relating to the credibility of Mr Rupert.

Lawyers for Mr McKevitt applied to Mr Justice O'Neill last month for leave to challenge that refusal in judicial review proceedings. Although such applications are normally ex parte, his lawyers did not object to submissions on the matter being made on behalf of the DPP.

The judge heard submissions over three days from both sides. Mr George Birmingham SC, for the DPP, opposed the application. He said the DPP had met his disclosure obligations in full, "warts and all" and contended the application was an effort to prevent Mr McKevitt from ever being tried.

In his reserved judgment yesterday, the judge said Mr McKevitt had not advanced any arguable case in law for the granting of leave.

The kernel of Mr McKevitt's complaint related to edited documents which were disclosed and other documents in the possession of foreign security agencies which were not disclosed.

The judge added there was always a suspicion that other documents existed and this was part of the disclosure process. The Special Court, and the prosecution, would have an ongoing role regarding disclosure during the trial. If evidence emerged of the existence of documents which should be disclosed, an application could be made to the trial court.