Hefferon Statement:
I come back now to the Hefferon statement. The Prime Time programme identified fifteen changes to the original Hefferon statement as compared with the Book of Evidence. I propose to list them in sequential order, "Change 1" through to "Change 15". (In fact, I believe that there are three additional further changes not identified by Prime Time, but I do not believe that they are material).
The Prime Time thesis went more or less as follows: There are significant and unexplained difference between the original version of the Hefferon statement and the statement in the Book of Evidence. These changes were designed to assist the prosecution by, inter alia, deleting references to Mr Gibbons.
The original statement was seen by Mr Berry on May 31, 1970. He made marks on the side and underlined passages. There was a close co-relation between the markings and the subsequent changes.
The statement was seen by me on June lst 1970 and I tacitly approved of these proposed changes with a view to assisting the prosecution and Mr Gibbons.
Had the Attorney General or the prosecuting team had access to the original statement of Col Hefferon, it is unlikely that the accused would have been charged.
The Irish Times then produced information relating to the claim of privilege and the inference which some commentators drew from this was that: The original version of the Hefferon statement was contained in the File S7/70 and I deliberately claimed privilege over this statement in order to ensure that it would not come to the attention of the court.
Elsewhere in my statement I have dealt with the June lst issue; how File S7/70 has changed radically since 7 October 1970 and the circumstances in which privilege came to be claimed. I have also pointed out that all the accused were arrested and charged several days before the Hefferon statement was made.
I now propose to show that, contrary to a central tenet of the Prime Time thesis, there is no close co-relation between the markings and underlining on the Hefferon statement and the subsequent changes which were made. I have demonstrated that extensive changes were made to all the witness statements released in the National Archives and how the common theme of these changes is to ensure compliance with the rules of evidence. In other words, contrary to the other central charge of the Prime Time thesis, there is an entirely legitimate explanation for these changes which, in any event, were not made by me, by Mr Berry or by anyone in the Department of Justice or at our request or instigation.
Firstly, I consider whether there is a close co-relation between the markings and underlinings on the copy Hefferon statement and the subsequent changes.
In the case of seven of these fifteen changes there are no corresponding marks allegedly made by Mr Berry. In the case of seven other changes, the changes only partially correspond to a mark allegedly made by Mr Berry. There is only one instance of where the mark on the side fully corresponds to a subsequent deletion. There are 15 instances of where Mr Berry allegedly made a mark on the side of the statement where there are no corresponding changes made of any kind in the statement. There are also four instances where Mr Berry allegedly underlined passages (without any corresponding mark on the side) and in none of these instances was the statement changed.
It does not seem correct, therefore, for Prime Time to have suggested that there was a close co-relation between the marks and the subsequent changes.
Turning now to the changes actually made, one is purely verbal: "him" is changed to "me." (Change 5, page 4). Change 2 ("This meeting with Captain Kelly was in my office") (page 2) does not seem at all material.
Four of the omissions relate to matters of which Col Hefferon was unsure or uncertain: "I do not know if I was in my office or at home" (Change 8, page 5).
"That must be why I was able to tell Mr Fagan that Captain Kelly was abroad when he ran me on 18th April 1970. I cannot recall telling Mr Fagan that I knew nothing was coming, but I may have said it. I cannot remember getting a call from Captain Kelly before he left for the Continent, before the 18th April, 1970. I don't see any reason why he should ring me from the Airport before going abroad as I was then retired." (Change 11, pages 5-6) "I cannot recollect if Tony Fagan used the words arms or ammunition." (Change 12, page 6) "Captain Kelly told me at some stage that a cargo of bullet proof vests came in for the Defence Committees. I cannot say if Mr Gibbons knew this." (Change 14, page 7, underlined words only deleted.)
Two further changes seem to be based on the fact that the statement contains hearsay, coupled with expressions of belief or opinion: "(Tony Fagan) said he had been trying to get in touch with Captain Kelly without success. He asked me if I knew where he was. I informed him that I believed he was in the Continent." (Change 10, page 5) "Mr Gibbons never discussed the matters of Customs clearance with me, neither did he discuss the Regulations under the Firearms Act for importing firearms and ammunition into this country for the Army-Gardai. It is my opinion that Mr Gibbons knew that Captain Kelly was involved in assisting the Defence Committees in the North to procure arms." (Change 13, page 7) In the case of the first sentence of the last extract, the omission could not assist the prosecution case, since it was only if the Minister for Defence had given sanction for the importation that such importation would be lawful. In other words, had that sentence been included, it would have assisted the prosecution case as tending to show that the Minister had given no authorisation under the Firearms Acts for the importation of the arms. While the inclusion of the second sentence would undoubtedly have assisted the defence, that sentence (". . . it is my opinion . . .") consisted purely of opinion and was thus inadmissible as evidence.
Change 1 relates to the position of Catholics in Derry and Belfast in August 1969: "I am aware that during this period (August 1969) several approaches were made by Catholics resident in Derry and Belfast and the North generally to Army personnel asking that arms and ammunition should be supplied to them for their defence. The official view was and my view was that this could not be done under any circumstances." (Change 1, page 1) The reason for this omission is unclear. However, the omission of this passage could not have assisted the prosecution. Quite the contrary: it tends to show that at least in August 1969 the Government would not have contemplated the authorisation of any such arms for such purposes.
Change 3 (page 3), Charge 4 (page 3) and Change 9 (page 5) all deal with the circumstances of Captain Kelly's retirement from the Army. In Change 9 we find the following statement which was subsequently omitted from the Book of Evidence: "I visited Mr Gibbons in his office and I was accompanied by my successor Colonel Delaney and I was taking the opportunity of formally introducing him to Mr Gibbons. I made the point that the only outstanding problem was what was to happen to Captain Kelly. Colonel Delaney took up the matter from there and left no doubt that he didn't want Captain Kelly to continue on his Staff. Mr Gibbons listened to the representations and promised to look into it." The reason for these particular changes seems clear: any references by Col Hefferon about what Col Delaney said about Captain Kelly were hearsay.
Certainly the deletion of this particular passage could not be said to have assisted the prosecution.
However, when we then look at the corresponding sections of the statements of Mr Gibbons and Col Delaney, a fuller picture emerges in respect of the reasons for these changes.