The British ambassador to Ireland told the Special Criminal Court in Dublin yesterday that he had been advised by members of the British security service in Ireland and London that all relevant material relating to Mr David Rupert, chief prosecution witness against the alleged leader of the "Real IRA", Mr Michael McKevitt, had been disclosed to the defence.
During 10 minutes of evidence at the Green Street courthouse, Sir Ivor Roberts said he had read several hundred pages of the 2,300 documents that had been furnished to him.
It was believed to be the first time that a British ambassador gave evidence in an Irish court. There was tight security for Sir Ivor's appearance, with Special Branch detectives escorting him to and from the courthouse.
Sir Ivor told Mr McKevitt's counsel, Mr Hugh Hartnett SC, that he had sworn an affidavit claiming privilege over certain documents. When asked why, he replied: "In essence what we are talking about is a desire to avoid putting lives at risk and to prevent the undermining of efforts to prevent and disrupt terrorism."
Sir Ivor told Mr Hartnett he had read "wide representative statements of the 2,300 pages" presented to him. He added: "I was aware that the defence line would be to seek to undermine the credibility of a witness."
When questioned as to who gave him the documents, Sir Ivor replied: "Members of the British security service," and added, "in Dublin." The ambassador said he relied "entirely" on the security service members. He had read the whole bundle of documents and selected several hundred.
He said: "They were not presented to me as files. They were presented to me as documents. They were a very large bundle of papers which I went through."
The ambassador said it was "a reasonable inference" that the documents were extracted to form a file. He said he had read the documents in their edited and unedited form. He said the documents were "lightly marked over" with ink so that he could read them.
He said there was a key explaining the editing and added: "We are perfectly prepared to make available to your lordships why redactions (editing) were made and on what grounds they were made."
Questioned by prosecuting counsel Mr George Birmingham SC, the ambassador said he was aware of the importance in the Irish legal system of an accused person obtaining a fair trial and he said this was why the British government had made the documentation available on such an extensive scale.
The ambassador was giving evidence at a preliminary hearing on the issue of disclosure in advance of Mr McKevitt's trial at the Special Criminal Court, which is due to go ahead early next year and is expected to last six weeks.
Also yesterday Mr Charles Fraham, section chief at the Counter Terrorism Division of the FBI in Washington DC, claimed privilege over certain documentation relating to the case.
Mr Fraham told Mr Hartnett he had not personally edited the documents relating to Mr Rupert that had been furnished to the Irish authorities.
He said this had been done by a number of people in the FBI, including agents and lawyers. He told the court he was claiming privilege on behalf of the FBI for the national security of the United States and to protect the safety and security of a number of people, including Mr Rupert.
Another FBI officer, Mr James Krupkowski, the supervisory special agent at the Chicago Field Office, also claimed privilege in relation to certain material.
He told Mr Hartnett there had been an allegation by a New York state police trooper that Mr Rupert was involved in criminal activity but he said there was no record of any such activity. "They didn't arrest him or anyone else. If it was common knowledge about him they did nothing about it," he added.
Questioned by Mr Hartnett about a FBI document that alleged Mr Rupert was involved in using his trucking business to smuggle illegal aliens, drugs, weapons and explosives between Canada and the US, Mr Krupkowski said this document was relating allegations made by one New York state trooper.
"It is one individual reporting widespread criminality for which there were no arrests," he said.
Mr Krupkowski said Mr Rupert had been investigated in 1975 for bouncing cheques but the charges were dismissed. He also said there had been a criminal investigation in New York state into Mr Rupert in the 1990s but a decision was taken not to prosecute.
He was asked if he would hand over the file relating to that investigation and he said he would not but added: "If the court were to order disclosure we would consider producing the file." Mr Krupkowski said it was FBI policy not to disclose internal documents.
Mr McKevitt's is the first prosecution for directing terrorism under new legislation brought in after the 1998 Omagh bombing.
The hearing continues today.