Republicans on murder bid charge claim ‘entrapment’
Chris Donegan • Published 29 Oct 2010 09:00
Two alleged republican terrorists accused of attempting to murder a student police officer in Garrison last November claim they were entrapped.
Kevin Barry Nolan (33), from Main Street, Blacklion, and Gerard James McManus(27), of Fernhill, Letterkenny, are charged with possessing a 9mm firearm with intent to endanger life on November 21, last year, and attempting to murder the student policeman.
McManus is also charged with using the firearm to resist arrest.
They appeared at Fermanagh Court yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon for a Preliminary Investigation to determine if there was sufficient evidence to send them to trial.
The two men were arrested following an undercover security operation in the Border village of Garrison last November.
Yesterday, defence solicitor, Mr. Peter Corrigan, began by saying McManus would be putting forward a defence during the proceedings that “he was entrapped in relation to this case”.
He said quite a lot of questions he would be putting to the prosecution witnesses would be in relation to that defence and he would be looking to have the prosecution stopped.
The solicitor said there was also an issue in relation to intent, that during police interview McManus had put forward a defence that he didn’t intend to murder the student police officer.
Mr. David Russell, a lawyer acting on behalf of the Public Prosecution Service, said: “No issue of entrapment has ever been made until literally five minutes ago.”
He said it seemed somewhat inconceivable that it would not have been an issue prior to the morning of the court, if it was an issue.
District Judge Bernadette Kelly said she had read the documents in the case and nowhere in the paperwork was there any mention of entrapment.
Mr. Russell said that if any of his witnesses were questioned about it he would be objecting on the basis that it was irrelevant. He suggested the defence file a skeleton argument and give the prosecution the opportunity to respond.
Mr. Corrigan told the court that at the moment he did not have the material to properly sustain an entrapment allegation. The only thing he had was the allegation made by McManus, uncorroborated by any police evidence.
“That is the purpose of my cross-examination, to find evidence,” he stated. “If the investigating (police) officer says he has material in relation to that then there is an issue.”
Mr. Russell said cross-examination of a witness was not a “fishing exercise”.
He pointed out that the prosecution was required to disclose all evidence relevant to the case. If there was material to be disclosed, it had to be disclosed. If there was no information to disclose, that was the end of it.
The District Judge said the allegation of entrapment should have been put forward before the day of the court, adding that she could not see “any good reason” why it hadn’t.
She said that in fairness to the prosecution, as the matter had only been raised five minutes prior to the court sitting, it needed time to consider the matter and carry out some further investigations.
She said she appreciated an adjournment would have an impact on Nolan.
Nolan’s defence barrister, Mr. Mark Reel, then got to his feet and told the court that an issue of entrapment also arose in his client’s case. He said he had not intended to ventilate it during the Preliminary Investigation but now that it had been raised by McManus’s solicitor he would reconsider whether or not he wished to pursue it at this stage of the legal proceedings.
He said the other matter he wished to raise was the delay in the court sitting that morning. He said the reason they were delayed was because Nolan was assaulted; he was “forcibly strip searched”. It was an unnecessary action and in breach of an agreement between the prisoners and the governor of Maghaberry Prison.
The District Judge gave the defence lawyers until November 10, to file skeleton arguments on the issue of entrapment and the relevance of that to the committal proceedings and the court’s power to deal with it.
She gave the prosecution until December 1, to respond with its skeleton argument with the case being reviewed when Nolan and McManus appear at Fermanagh Court by video link on December 6.
This article appeared in Impartial Reporter 28 Oct 10
Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.
