Mr Desmond O'Malley has released a 19-page statement touching on his involvement as Minister for Justice in the Arms Trial of 1970 and on the recent controversy relating to the editing of an original statement made by the late Col Michael Hefferon, head of Military Intelligence. It is a detailed and helpful document and it is to be welcomed, as such.
The former leader of the Progressive Democrats has adopted a multi-faceted response. He says he has no recollection of seeing Col Hefferon's original statement; that any changes made were in accordance with the law of evidence and normal procedure at the time and that statements by other witnesses were also changed. He also says that the changes were made under the authority of the Chief State Solicitor's Office and that of the Attorney General, and that neither he nor the then Secretary of the Department of Justice, Mr Peter Berry, had edited statements, made changes or caused them to be made.
Mr O'Malley's latest contribution is likely to add to, rather than dampen, the controversy that has blown up in recent weeks. This is because some of the conclusions and inferences drawn from the available archival evidence are self-serving. He appears to be perfectly happy with all the decisions which were made in the processing of the case for the State. Others will take quite a different view. The excisions in Col Hefferon's evidence may have been consistent with the general approach of the State's lawyers. But this process had the effect of painting a very different picture of affairs from what the colonel verbally testified later. Nor is it clear that all the excisions fall into the category of opinion, hearsay or personal belief, as set out by Mr O'Malley.
The cataclysmic events of 1969-70 generated strong emotions and deeply-conflicting responses for the people of this State as the nationalist population in Northern Ireland came under attack. The civil rights campaign had led to street violence and representatives of various citizens' defence committees came South looking for arms. An instinct to facilitate Northern nationalists in defending themselves, and advancing the cause of Irish unity, was countered by a fear of facilitating the IRA and promoting civil war.
Out of those conflicting responses grew the plan to import almost seven tons of weapons in the spring of 1970. Mr Haughey and the other defendants were arrested, charged and subsequently acquitted. The Fianna Fail party split, with the majority backing Mr Jack Lynch and a restructured Cabinet that included the young Mr O'Malley. Mr Lynch and his supporters pulled the State back from a course of action that could have led to a breakdown in democracy, to anarchy and war.
Mr O'Malley's initial reaction to this controversy was to call for a full inquiry into all the events and circumstances surrounding the Arms Crisis, rather than concentrate on the processes and conduct of the trial, as advocated by Captain James Kelly - one of those who was charged and acquitted of conspiring to import arms illegally. In the intervening period, Mr O'Malley has engaged in something of a pre-emptive strike by researching the archives and providing explanations and justifications for what happened in relation to the court case. The exercise is unlikely to persuade Captain Kelly and his supporters. And it confirms the need for a more structured and impartial investigation into what transpired, and why, more than 30 years ago. The trawl of all official documents that is being undertaken by both the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General could contribute to such a broader exercise when they become available for public inspection.