I am informed by an editorial in a newspaper that my response to the latest controversy regarding the Arms Trial, and the events that led to it, is "less than comprehensive". I hope this leader writer is never faced with the difficulty of having to reply out of the blue to allegations thirty-one years after the event with very limited and incomplete papers available and with virtually all his colleagues who might have been able to render assistance or advice either dead or otherwise unavailable.
When these allegations were first conveyed to me I was in hospital. After leaving hospital I started trying to gather such papers and other information as I could. It has taken some considerable time and is not complete but I think I have obtained enough information to be able to deal with the main allegations made.
The first point to which I want to draw attention is one which I made already in a television programme but which I see has been conveniently brushed aside by those who have their own agenda. One of the central points of the original Prime Time programme was that prosecutions might not have started against all or some of the defendants if Col Hefferon's statement had been available in full to the Law Officers. In fact Col Hefferon's statement was made three days after the defendants were arrested and charged and four days after warrants were applied for by the Gardai for their arrest. The claim, therefore, does not stand up. It simply had no bearing on the matter and that should be remembered.
I have examined as carefully as I can a photostat copy of a plain typed copy of one of Col Hefferon's statements to the guards. The copy statement bears various marks. The copy statement also bears the stamp "Secretary to see, Minister to see". That stamp as far as I recall would normally have been placed on a report or document by an Assistant Principal in the Department dealing with security matters who would send it up the line to the Secretary, and the Minister would see it if the Secretary thought it worthwhile. What is unusual about this copy statement and the stamp is that the statement was made on Saturday 30th May, purports to have been seen by the Secretary on Sunday 3lst May, and purports to have been seen by me on Monday lst June, although I did not initial it or mark it in any way if I did see it.
I think this timescale is unlikely. The weekend in question was a bank holiday weekend. The Department of Justice was closed on the Saturday, the Sunday and the Monday. I do not see how the stamp could have been placed on it by the Assistant Principal on the Saturday or the Sunday and while it may conceivably have been delivered to Mr Berry at his home on the Sunday, it could not have been seen by me on the Monday because I was not in the locked Department nor, to the best of my knowledge, was I in Dublin on that day. My wife believes I was at our home in Limerick that weekend. I had no home in Dublin at that time.
Even if I saw the plain copy statement it does not follow that there were any marks on it when I saw it. As I have already said I have no recollection of having seen it at the time. I am as certain as one can be after thirty-one years that I did not see it on the June bank holiday Monday, 1st June 1970. At that stage I was three weeks a Minister.
Editing Of Statements:
Editing of statements: I now want to comment on that plain copy statement and on eleven other sets of plain copy statements to which I have had access over the last few weeks from the National Archives. What follows is turgid in its detail but necessary to try to establish for the first time some facts in a highly complex matter and to overturn some of the simplistic assumptions made by certain people for their own purposes. The work involved in this was tedious, laborious and time consuming but at least it is comprehensive. It shows the danger, of which I have warned, of drawing major conclusions from one copy document in a complex matter.
I will show that all twelve sets of statements to which I now have access were heavily edited in a roughly consistent manner before they appeared in the Book of Evidence. Many of them were edited much more heavily than Col Hefferon's statement and, as a general rule, most of the editing was for the purpose of excluding hearsay, opinion and personal belief and including only the facts.
Details of conversations were left in only when one or more of the accused was present. The fact of such a conversation was left in, as far as one can see, in all cases. This was done in accordance with the rules of evidence and could only have been done by a lawyer or lawyers.
Another document which I discovered in the National Archives, and which I attach hereto, is a formal memorandum from the Chief State Solicitor to the Attorney General, dated 30th July 1970, setting out the circumstances under which the Book of Evidence was compiled. It is clear from this that it was done in conditions of secrecy under the direction of the Junior Prosecuting Counsel, Mr Aidan Browne BL, and the senior criminal solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's Office, Mr Edward J Durnin and they dictated the Book of Evidence to Detective Officers in the SDU who were already involved in the case and who typed the Book of Evidence in SDU Dublin Castle rather than in the Chief State Solicitor's Office. The evidence indicates, therefore, that Messrs Browne and Durnin were the two people who decided what went into or came out of the Book of Evidence and there is no evidence available that anybody else was involved.
Col Hefferon made two statements. One of them was completely excluded from the Book of Evidence. There are eighteen excisions from the remaining statement, some of them very short and of no consequence. They do not all relate to Mr Gibbons. One significant excision relates to what Mr Fagan said to Col Hefferon about what Mr Haughey had said to him. This was also excluded and, as it happens, its exclusion would have been of assistance to one of the defendants, Mr Haughey. The Chief State Solicitor directed the gardai to have all the original signed statements available in Court in case anyone wanted to refer to them. A copy of his own full statement was no doubt in the possession of Col Hefferon who after his retirement appears to have had discussions with Captain Kelly.
I now wish to refer to the extent of the editing. Mr Berry's original statement had two paragraphs added to it by what he describes as "the law officers". Mr Gibbons' four statements, which included some questions and answers, have 32 excisions, some of them quite lengthy.
Mr AJ Fagan made six statements. Two of these were completely excluded from the Book of Evidence and in the other four 26 excisions in all were made.
There were sixteen excisions made from Mr D O'Riordan's statement together with 37 changes of wording or insertions when it appeared in the Book of Evidence. Mr T Tobin made two statements from which there were nine excisions, some of them very lengthy. Approximately 95 per cent of each of his statements is excluded and there are seven additions or changes of wording in his statement as it appears in the Book of Evidence.
Mr B Culligan made two statements from which there were six excisions, some very lengthy. Approximately 95 per cent of each of his statements is excluded from the Book of Evidence, but there are four insertions added or new and different wording used to what was in the original statements.
Col PJ Delaney had six excisions made to his statement and two changes of wording. Mr AJ Desmond made four statements, including one question-and-answer statement. Two of these statements are totally excluded and there are eight excisions from the other two together with fifteen changes of wording or insertions into the Book of Evidence. Mr M Connellan made one statement from which there are three very long excisions and more than 90 per cent of his statement is excluded from the Book of Evidence. There is one insertion added to his statement.
Mr MJ Donnelly made one statement from which there are two very long excisions. Approximately 98 per cent of his statement is excluded from the Book of Evidence. Mr J Ryan made one statement from which there are fourteen excisions and 25 changes of wording or additions in the Book of Evidence.
The pattern of editing by the two prosecution lawyers in these twelve sets of statements is consistent throughout, and the fact of the matter is that there is less editing of Col Hefferon's statement than of many of the others. The system of a book of evidence was quite new at that time having been only recently introduced. The system up to then had been the taking of depositions.
The prosecution naturally compiled the book of evidence. It was the normal practice at the time. It was open to any of the witnesses or any or the defendants to object but none of them appears to have availed of that opportunity or thought it worthwhile or necessary. What was done was done in accordance with the law of evidence and normal procedure at the time. Neither I nor Mr Berry edited the statements or made these changes or caused them to be made.