The British authorities were criticised strongly yesterday following the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to drop terrorist-related charges against the Dublin woman, Ms Elaine Moore (22). Her solicitor, Ms Gareth Peirce, said the Metropolitan Police had simply decided not to believe her "consistent explanations" and that was "tantamount to reversing the burden of proof".
Ms Moore, who is now free to leave Britain, is preparing to return to Ireland later today with her mother and members of her family following the dramatic decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to drop all charges against her on the basis of insufficient evidence. The family held a party in London last night to celebrate the collapse of the charges.
She was informed of the CPS's decision late on Thursday evening by Ms Peirce, who had received a faxed statement from the CPS a short time earlier confirming its view that the charges of conspiracy to cause explosions and possession of explosives would be dropped due to insufficient evidence. A spokeswoman for the CPS refused to comment on the decision other than to confirm that the case against Ms Moore was discontinued due to a lack of evidence. Three other men, arrested with Ms Moore in July, remain in custody on remand in the high security Belmarsh Prison, in south London.
Mr Liam Patrick Grogan (21), of Naas, Co Kildare, and Mr Anthony Hyland (25), of no address, are charged with conspiracy to cause explosions and possession of explosives. A third man, Mr Darren Mulholland (19), of Dundalk, Co Louth, has been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions.
The Metropolitan Police last night refused to comment on issues raised by Ms Moore's mother, Mrs Cathy Moore, relating to the involvement of an undercover police officer in the case. Mrs Moore expressed her concern during an RTE interview that the case against her daughter had proceeded despite the involvement of the police officer.
A spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police said she could not discuss any aspects of the operation. The police had met its absolute duty to investigate all aspects of crime and commenting on the case, when three men were still facing charges relating to the operation, would be a matter of sub judice.
But Ms Peirce said she was astonished that the case had been allowed to proceed so far through the courts, given the fact that when someone advertised for a lodger, which could be taken up by anybody, including an undercover detective, that must mean the person had "nothing to hide". The prosecution was tantamount to reversing the burden of proof, she said.
Welcoming the decision to drop the case, she reserved her severest criticism for the actions of the Metropolitan Police. Ms Peirce said the case was an example of a prosecution "where there was no evidence that could establish that she was knowledgeable or guilty, or could be, of any offence. What was sustained was the police's disbelief in her consistent explanations. It was purely and simply a police decision not to believe her and nothing more than that".
In the light of the collapse of the case against Mr Patrick McKinley, who was charged in connection with the Canary Wharf bombing, Ms Peirce said she was concerned that people could be held for a considerable amount of time in custody while protesting their innocence only for the case against them to fall.
Asked if it was too early to consider bringing a case for compensation against the British authorities, Ms Peirce said: "It would be. She would have to consider that carefully. I think she would want to be shot of the courts and not spend time looking back."