Yesterday, in accordance with a commitment I made on 11 April last, I laid before both Houses a report on allegations of an attempt to suppress evidence in the Arms Trial. I am conscious that, in the time available today, we can make only short statements and that in any event Members may wish to consider at more length the contents of the report, but I thought it would be useful if we in this House had the opportunity at least to exchange some preliminary thoughts on the matter.
The Arms Trial was not only a criminal trial of unusual importance, but an event of political significance and historical interest. It took place against a backdrop of unprecedented civil dis turbances and disorder in the North, events which still reverberate today.
From the outset, therefore, I regarded the issues raised first by the News of the World newspaper and, subsequently, by “Prime Time” as significant and requiring investigation, not only because they relate to the Arms Trial, important though that is, but because they question the integrity of the criminal justice system at that time.
I am conscious too that the issues raised by the media have serious implications for the reputation and integrity of a number of persons who, in some cases, fiercely contested the most fundamental issues in the Arms Trial. Some of these persons are no longer with us and cannot defend themselves against allegations, and I know that the House will share with me a concern that any discussion of this matter should take account of that fact.
The questions raised in the media amounted to an allegation that the statement of Colonel Hefferon, an important witness in the Arms Trial, was altered prior to inclusion in the book of evidence so as to remove from it references to the state of knowledge of the then Minister for Defence, Jim Gibbons, of the planned importation of arms. This was one of the key points of contention in the Arms Trial. At least some of the defendants claimed that the Minister for Defence knew of the planned importation and at least tacitly approved of it and that, far from conspiring to import arms unlawfully, they were acting at all times on the lawful authority of the Minister. The Minister for Defence always strongly denied this.
There is the complication here that the Minister for Defence could, in any event, only have authorised the importation of arms for the use of the Defence Forces, and that if he had purported to authorise the importation of arms, this would only have been lawful if they had been intended for such use. This is a distinction of significant legal importance, but it does not take away from the central issue, which is that at least some of the defendants claimed to be acting on the authority of the Minister. Supporters of this view will no doubt point to the fact that while it is clearly not the case that the "Berry markings" coincide with the subsequent omissions from the book of evidence, it is the case that, in both instances, material tending to suggest that Mr. Gibbons had knowledge of what was taking place was at issue.
In making my inquiries, I asked the Attorney General and the Garda Síochána for a report on the allegation in so far as it touched on their areas of responsibilities. Their reports are attached to my report.
My objective in conducting my inquiries and in making my report to this House was to set out for the information of Members as much of the relevant evidence as is currently available. As my report acknowledges, there are difficulties in the way of establishing, in any definitive way, the truth of the allegations. We are dealing with events of over 30 years ago in circumstances where some of the central personalities are now dead, and where the documentation is incomplete. There is also the obvious consideration, which I mention in my report, that evidence of any conspiracy to pervert the course of justice would be very unlikely to be recorded in documentary form. Indeed, one would imagine that anyone attempting such a conspiracy would take care to avoid any appearance of impropriety. For all of these reasons, it is impossible, at least on the evidence currently available, to make an authoritative finding of fact in relation to the truth of the allegation. Instead, we must seek to establish the likelihood of any such conspiracy by reference to the existing documentation and the surrounding circumstances.
I conclude in my report that, on the basis of an analysis of all of the available material, and on the basis of all other relevant considerations, it seems reasonable to infer that the likelihood of an attempt to suppress evidence is remote. I say that for a number of reasons set out in my report but, in particular, and apart altogether from the serious wrong involved in any suppression of evidence in a criminal trial, I think it is reasonable to doubt seriously whether a number of persons who held positions of responsibility would have engaged in a conspiracy which, from their undoubted knowledge of the law, they surely would have known was almost certain to be exposed. The risk would have been enormous. Any such conspiracy, if exposed, would have collapsed the trial, ended the conspirators' careers and, most probably, left them facing serious criminal charges. It is difficult to imagine such persons taking such a huge risk in circumstances where there would have been every chance of exposure and where in any event the potential gain was so uncertain, given that Colonel Hefferon was in any event going to give his evidence in court. I fully acknowledge that any conclusion as to the truth of the allegation must be qualified by the limitations I have mentioned and cannot, therefore, be definitive. It may be that others will form their own view of the evidence.
What I have set out to achieve in my report, with the assistance of the Attorney General and the Garda Síochána, is to put Members of this House, and the wider community, in the best possible position to form their own judgments in this matter, by establishing the available evidence and publishing it. I do not claim to have any monopoly of judgment on this matter.
For all that the documentation and other evidence is incomplete, it is still the case that these reports, taken together, contain detailed and complex information on the prosecution in the Arms Trial. I appreciate that Deputies will need time to consider more carefully the contents of these reports and to form their own conclusions. I am sure more time will be needed in the House to discuss the matter further and when we resume after the recess, it can be dealt with again in the House in early autumn.
I undertook to inquire into the allegation raised in the media and to report back to both Houses. I have now done so. The reality of the circumstances dictates that my report cannot reach definitive conclusions, but I hope Deputies will accept the report as a genuine attempt to establish as far as possible the circumstances which gave rise to the allegation. It may be that a definitive conclusion will never be possible. Certainly, the passing of the years will diminish the possibility but, in another sense, perhaps the passage of time will bring objectivity and perspective to our understanding of the events of 30 years ago and enable a fuller understanding of the events of that time. Perhaps, in this as in so many other matters, history will have to be the best judge.