A lawyer for the alleged leader of the "Real IRA", Mr Michael McKevitt, claimed at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin yesterday that the chief prosecution witness, Mr David Rupert, is "a person of bad character" who "constantly acted in a criminal, corrupt and venal way".
In an affidavit read to the court Mr James Mac Guill, Mr McKevitt's solicitor, said it will be contended at the trial by Mr McKevitt that Mr Rupert is "a wholly unreliable person". Mr Mac Guill said that from material supplied to the defence Mr Rupert maintained that any actions by him in Ireland were motivated by money because his trucking business was not rewarding.
Mr Mac Guill said Mr Rupert had been involved in numerous businesses in the US, some of which had gone into liquidation. He was also a frequent visitor to the Cayman Islands throughout the 1990s and was still visiting the islands in September 1998.
In a letter dated August 25th, 1993, which was marked "secret", Mr Rupert was described by police as "an extremely smart street criminal who would insulate himself from any illegal act by using others as front people. Rupert is believed to set up the criminal enterprise, handle the money and have his partners and others take the risks. He is very smooth, bright and will do anything if he sees a financial profit in it." The affidavit went on to state that in 1993 Mr Rupert was well known to police officers in the northern New York state area who suspected him of using his trucks for thefts and smuggling of illegal aliens, drugs, weapons and explosives between Canada and the United States.
Mr Mac Guill said it was essential to the defence to have all details of Mr Rupert's businesses and details of his bank accounts. The defence is also seeking all documents of meetings between Mr Rupert, the FBI and the British security service. A British security service agent reported raising a conversation between Mr Rupert and Assistant Garda Commissioner Dermot Jennings with Mr Jennings.
The agent reported that Assistant Commissioner Jennings had denied an allegation by Mr Rupert that he (Jennings) "didn't really care about what happened in the North, only what happened in the 26 Counties."
The British agent went on: "I responded that the problem was that the allegation was there in the email and we now had to decide what to do about it. If the defence got hold of it and Jennings denied the report's veracity that would make Rupert an untrustworthy source. Jennings urged that the report be removed. I said I felt strongly that this was a matter of liaison sensitivity that justified redaction (editing). I am discussing it with the lawyers. There was a pause (presumably while the metaphorical penny dropped in Jennings's brain). He suddenly became much more friendly. I explained that there were a few more such trickinesses in the paperwork that we were addressing."
Mr Mac Guill said that Assistant Commissioner Jennings's statement of evidence dated June 11th, 2002, rejected the suggestion that he was attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Mr McKevitt's counsel, Mr Hugh Hartnett SC, told the court: "It's trickiness that we are concerned about." He said failure to answer such questions may prove significant.
Mr Mac Guill, in his affidavit, said the British secret service is sensitive about any material that seems to cast doubt upon the credibility of Mr Rupert, which is the very material that it is essential to disclose.
"They seek to throw the burden of explaining their chosen redactions (edits) upon the Garda Síochána and the "Eire Direction of Public Prosecutions", thereby attempting to rid themselves of importunity."