The Special Criminal Court has reserved judgment in the preliminary hearing of the alleged leader of the "Real IRA", Mr Michael McKevitt.
The court yesterday heard closing submissions from Mr Mc- Kevitt's counsel, Mr Hugh Hartnett SC. The defence is seeking further disclosure of material relating to the chief prosecution witness against Mr McKevitt, FBI agent Mr David Rupert.
Mr Justice Johnson, presiding, said the court would adjourn the hearing until October 24th and hoped to be in a position to give judgment then.
The court has been told by the head of Garda intelligence, Det Chief Supt Martin Callinan, that he believes there is a "very real and very substantial" threat to the lives of Mr Rupert and his family from the "Real IRA" because of his involvement as a witness. Mr McKevitt's trial is due to go ahead early next year.
The preliminary hearing has been told that the chief prosecution witness is Mr Rupert, a US citizen who allegedly attended several "Real IRA" army council meetings at which Mr McKevitt was present.
Mr Rupert, who has worked for the FBI and the British Security Service (MI5) since 1994, will tell the trial that Mr McKevitt asked him to get material in the United States and appointed him temporary liaison officer for his organisation in the US.
Mr McKevitt's lawyers have argued that Mr Rupert had a long- time criminal involvement and are seeking all material relating to his business dealings and criminal investigations.
Mr McKevitt (51), of Beech Park, Blackrock, Dundalk, Co Louth, is charged that between August 29th, 1999, and March 28th, 2001, within the State, he was a member of an unlawful organisation styling itself the Irish Republican Army, otherwise the IRA, otherwise Óglaigh na hÉireann, and that he directed the activities of the same organisation.
It is the first prosecution for directing terrorism under new legislation brought in after the 1998 Omagh bombing.
In his closing submission to the three judges yesterday, Mr Hartnett said the affidavits provided by the FBI and the British authorities all used the same formula of language. "One asks the question: why? Was there some form of formulaic flim-flam which was being used to pull the wool over the eyes of the defence and the court? That question remains unanswered."