IRA murder trial may collapse over ‘inadmissible’ interviews

THE trial of two paratroopers for the murder of an IRA commander was last night on brink of collapse after a senior judge was asked to throw out two crucial interviews as evidence.

The former British soldiers, who can be identified only as A and C, went on trial in Belfast on Monday accused of “unlawfully shooting” Joe Mccann, a leading figure in the IRA, in April 1972.

The judge presiding over the case said he found it “remarkable” that the two soldiers, now in their 70s, were neither arrested nor interviewed by the Police Service for Northern Ireland (PSNI) before being put on trial.

Mr Justice O’hara expressed his surprise during an application by the soldiers’ barristers to throw out key evidence in the Crown’s prosecution which emerged from two interviews the men gave in 1972 and 2010.

When asked by Mr Justice O’hara if “without the interviews, the case would fall”, the prosecutor replied: “On that basis my Lord, yes.”

Mr Justice O’hara is expected to give his ruling on whether the interviews can be used as evidence at 11am today.

The soldiers have been accused of using an “unreasonable” level of force when they shot Mccann, a “most dangerous” member of the Official IRA who was wanted for his involvement in violent “reprisal” attacks, including the deaths of 15 British soldiers.

Soldiers A and C were interviewed about the fatal incident by the Royal Military Police in 1972, when they were informed they would not be prosecuted, and again by the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) in 2010.

The HET investigator told Belfast Crown Court this week that no “new or compelling evidence” that could justify a trial had emerged from the interviews and he had not expected the veterans to be charged with murder.

However, in 2016 the soldiers were informed they were to be prosecuted.

Branding the procedures in 1972 as “pretty hopeless and inadequate”, Mr Justice O’hara said: “I find it a remarkable feature of this case that they were not interviewed by the PSNI and they were not arrested, but are in court on trial for murder.”

The defence lawyers for both men have argued that the interviews are inadmissible.

A barrister for Soldier A said the interview conducted with her client in 1972 was oppressive, conducted without any knowledge of his legal rights and “where they deliberately didn’t ask his justification for the shooting”. She pointed out that, at the time, Soldier A was a 22-year-old “lowly ranking corporal” who was interviewed by a senior figure within the Army.

The barrister added that when Soldier A was spoken to again by HET in 2010, he had little recollection of the shooting because a stroke in 2005 had affected his memory.

The barrister said Soldier A was not given the opportunity to defend himself and explain his actions in 1972, and when asked again in 2010, he was not able to due to lack of memory.

The barrister representing Soldier C also cited oppression linked to the 1972 statements and questioned their legality.

Responding to the defence submissions, a Crown barrister said it was accepted that in a case dating back to 1972, there were “limitations” when it came to evidence.