JUDGE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO DISMISS HOEY CHARGES
Judge to decide whether to dismiss Hoey charges
THE judge in the Omagh Bomb trial in Belfast will decide today if two of II the 58 charges faced by electrician Sean Hoey should be dismissed.
Yesterday the defence team for the 37-year-old south Armagh man claimed there had been "a unity of purpose, otherwise known as a conspiracy" by police to "bury" evidence in relation to explosives offences.
However, while the prosecution accepted there was "a potential for prejudice" against Hoey, they claimed "there is something sinister is putting the matter too far", and that there was nothing to suggest "there was a deliberate conspiracy".
Mr Justice Weir said he wanted "to give a little thought" to the submissions on whether he should "stay proceedings" on charges surrounding a murder conspiracy and mortar bomb find at Altmore Forest, Dungannon on April 15, 2001.
Orlando Pownall, defending, claimed that given the state of the evidence "from three crucial witnesses" Hoey, from Molly Road, Jonesborough, "would not get a fair trial and it would not be fair to try him on those two counts".
Mr Pownall said the case relied on DNA evidence and that the "integrity of the exhibits is of paramount importance".
"Unless it can be said the integrity is beyond question, then the prosecution case is tainted," he added.
Mr Pownall said the because of "perjured" evidence surrounding the exhibits there had been a serious "manipulation of the court process by senior officers" which "can't be brushed under the-carpet".
At one stage Mr Justice Weir interjected to say he was "rather at sea at the moment as to why I cannot deal with the matter during the trial process".
"Because he cannot have a fair trial," replied Mr Pownall, who added: "It would not be fair to try the case on prejudiced evidence" and that the court ha not been given a "credible explanation for doing what they (the police) said or done".
Gordon Kerr, prosecuting, said "there is no doubt we accept, there is a potential for prejudice because the procedures were not properly carried out".
However, Mr Kerr was quick to ad that, "the fact that there is potential prejudice is not the issue here before the court, the question is whether there or is actual prejudice".
The lawyer further argued the fact that the matter "has come to light and lead the examination and fully explored in the court, has meant there is no actual prejudice to the defendant".
Mr Kerr claimed that this in turn was "in fact an example of a case where the trial process has been properly and successfully used to expose the improprieties - an example of the trial procedure working".
THE judge in the Omagh Bomb trial in Belfast will decide today if two of II the 58 charges faced by electrician Sean Hoey should be dismissed.
Yesterday the defence team for the 37-year-old south Armagh man claimed there had been "a unity of purpose, otherwise known as a conspiracy" by police to "bury" evidence in relation to explosives offences.
However, while the prosecution accepted there was "a potential for prejudice" against Hoey, they claimed "there is something sinister is putting the matter too far", and that there was nothing to suggest "there was a deliberate conspiracy".
Mr Justice Weir said he wanted "to give a little thought" to the submissions on whether he should "stay proceedings" on charges surrounding a murder conspiracy and mortar bomb find at Altmore Forest, Dungannon on April 15, 2001.
Orlando Pownall, defending, claimed that given the state of the evidence "from three crucial witnesses" Hoey, from Molly Road, Jonesborough, "would not get a fair trial and it would not be fair to try him on those two counts".
Mr Pownall said the case relied on DNA evidence and that the "integrity of the exhibits is of paramount importance".
"Unless it can be said the integrity is beyond question, then the prosecution case is tainted," he added.
Mr Pownall said the because of "perjured" evidence surrounding the exhibits there had been a serious "manipulation of the court process by senior officers" which "can't be brushed under the-carpet".
At one stage Mr Justice Weir interjected to say he was "rather at sea at the moment as to why I cannot deal with the matter during the trial process".
"Because he cannot have a fair trial," replied Mr Pownall, who added: "It would not be fair to try the case on prejudiced evidence" and that the court ha not been given a "credible explanation for doing what they (the police) said or done".
Gordon Kerr, prosecuting, said "there is no doubt we accept, there is a potential for prejudice because the procedures were not properly carried out".
However, Mr Kerr was quick to ad that, "the fact that there is potential prejudice is not the issue here before the court, the question is whether there or is actual prejudice".
The lawyer further argued the fact that the matter "has come to light and lead the examination and fully explored in the court, has meant there is no actual prejudice to the defendant".
Mr Kerr claimed that this in turn was "in fact an example of a case where the trial process has been properly and successfully used to expose the improprieties - an example of the trial procedure working".
Further Information
Publisher: THE IRISH NEWS
Ref: IN/0820
Published Date: 30-Nov-06
Related Images
There have been no images archived for this article.