The case of two men accused of membership of the Provisional IRA and arranging meetings on behalf of the organisation has collapsed in Belfast after the prosecution announced it was “offering no evidence” against them.
The North’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS) in a statement on Wednesday evening indicated the case collapsed because key witnesses decided not to give evidence.
Sean Gerard Hughes (52), of Aghadavoyle Road, Jonesborough, and Padraic Conner Wilson (55), of Hamill Park, Andersonstown, west Belfast, had previously pleaded not guilty to a charge of belonging to a proscribed organisation between January 1st, 2005 and March 31st, 2005.
They also denied that on a date unknown between February 1st, 2005 and March 7th, 2005, in Belfast they "addressed a meeting and the purpose of this address was to encourage support for a proscribed organisation, namely, the Irish Republican Army, or to further its activities". This related to a meeting in Clonard Monastery in west Belfast.
The defendants further pleaded not guilty to a similar charge of addressing a meeting at Holy Cross Church in Ardoyne on a date between February 25th, 2005 and March 9th, 2005.
Neither Mr Wilson nor Mr Hughes appeared in the dock of Belfast Crown Court for the brief hearing, although both were present in the court building.
Addressing Judge Stephen Fowler, Crown counsel Ciaran Murphy QC said: “In the case of Wilson and Hughes, the prosecution will not be offering any evidence.”
However, no explanation was given to the court as to why the case would not be proceeding to trial.
Mr Wilson’s defence counsel Arthur Harvey QC said: “I would ask that the court direct that my client be acquitted.”
John McCrudden QC, for Sean Hughes, also asked the court to make a similar direction.
Judge Fowler told the court: “As the prosecution are not offering any evidence I direct the acquittal of both defendants.”
The judge added that a reporting restriction would remain in place until he had “time to reflect” on a number of letters which had been handed in to court.
These related to witnesses involved in the case who had “expressed concerns” about their identities being revealed if the reporting restriction was lifted.
Later on Wednesday a spokeswoman for the North’s PPS said it was “disappointing” witnesses had withdrawn. She said the PPS had sought to address the concerns of witnesses in the case, including why the defendants faced certain charges and not others which also were considered.
“We are satisfied that the test for prosecution was met in respect of the offences charged but not in respect of other offences to which consideration was given,” said the spokeswoman.
She added that the case was ready to proceed to full trial on Monday and “has not been subject to any undue delay”.
The spokeswomanadded: “In these circumstances it is disappointing that the witnesses have withdrawn, but we respect their decision to do so. Now that the proceedings have concluded we are able to fulfil our commitment to the witnesses to provide further information, which we hope will meet their concerns.”