White fails to delay Morris Tribunal

THE Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Morris Tribunal to proceed with a private inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of seven people at Burnfoot, Co Donegal, in May 1998.

The three-judge court yesterday rejected an application by Detective Sergeant John White to place a stay on the Burnfoot module to allow him to bring High Court proceedings aimed at deferring that module pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against him.

Det Sgt White, with an address at Ballybofey, Co Donegal, had claimed the hearing of the module would prejudice his entitlement to a fair trial on a charge of planting a firearm at a Traveller camp at Burnfoot in May 1998.

A date for that has not been fixed because the outcome is awaited of separate High Court proceedings (heard last June with judgment reserved) in which Det Sgt White sought an order prohibiting the trial.

At the Supreme Court yesterday, John Whelan SC, for Det Sgt White, argued the tribunal would be dealing with the same matters as the criminal case and would effectively afford the prosecution a “dry run” of the case against him, prejudicing his right to silence and to cross-examine witnesses.

Michael Collins SC, for the tribunal, rejected those claims and said Det Sgt White was effectively arguing for a “utopian model of forensic perfection”.

Giving the decision, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said Det Sgt White had not established there was a real risk of an unfair trial on the criminal charge.

He said Det Sgt White’s complaint was that the prosecution at his criminal trial would gain a significant tactical advantage by virtue of the Burnfoot module proceeding prior to it. It was argued the prosecution would know, from Det Sgt White’s evidence to the tribunal, the nature of his defence and would be able to “fine tune” its case.

Mr Justice Hardiman said any findings by the tribunal would not be binding on Det Sgt White and nothing he said at the tribunal could be used against him in the criminal case.

The judge added that any court or tribunal has discretion to defer its proceedings if there was a question of specific prejudice to the integrity of a criminal trial and if there was a real, and not just “a notional danger”, of an unfair trial.

In this case, there appeared to be no real or substantial danger to the integrity of the criminal trial, he said. He noted that the main prosecution witness in the case had made a statement which was furnished to Det Sgt White, who had given a detailed reply.

Mr Justice Hardiman said the court noted that statutory measures were introduced in 2002 which permitted, in certain circumstances, a tribunal to proceed with inquiries into matters also the subject of criminal proceedings. There was no substance in Det Sgt White’s argument that those provisions might not apply to his case.

The judge said the tribunal was inquiring into matters of great importance and it was desirable in the public interest that it should proceed. On those grounds, the court rejected Det Sgt White’s application and also awarded costs against him.