‘Horrific’ allegation may have turned case

TALKS about Ian Bailey’s abandonment of his case began as early as Thursday afternoon following the English journalist’s “horrific” evidence against lawyers for the newspapers.

That evidence, which was greeted with a storm of protest from the newspaper lawyers and a warning to Mr Bailey from the judge, could well have been the turning point for Mr Bailey’s case.

Mr Bailey’s case had always been that his problems began with garda corruption framing him for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, aggravated by a compliant media using false information from the gardaí and by malice and character assassination in some media reports.

That was the theme of Mr Bailey’s libel case in Cork Circuit Court three years ago. The same themes were present this week in Mr Bailey’s evidence, until shortly after 3pm on Thursday when he added solicitors and barristers for the newspapers to the number of people who were alleged to be knowingly using false information against him.

To appreciate the significance of what he said, one has to go back to the evidence given in the original trial by witness Marie Farrell. She testified in Cork Circuit Court three years ago in the failed libel action that she saw Mr Bailey at Kealfadda Bridge on the night of the murder.

She recanted this evidence in October 2005 and claimed gardaí pressured her to make the statement.

Mr Bailey made several references this week to the fact that she recanted her evidence and went a significant step further on Thursday when he accused newspaper lawyers of putting Ms Farrell in the witness box three years ago to give evidence they knew was false.

“Solicitors for the newspapers were aware Marie Farrell had made a fabricated statement. That was made known to barristers. That witness was still used in the case,” he said.

He said he found this out during a lunch break in the second week of the trial.

Paul Gallagher diverted from his cross-examination of Mr Bailey to address Mr Justice Brian McGovern directly: “Mr Bailey has made this allegation. It is wholly and utterly false. It is wholly inappropriate he should use the witness box to make that allegation,” he said.

Mr Justice McGovern said: “A very serious imputation has been made against counsel and solicitors for newspapers in the privileged position of the witness box.” The judge asked how the lawyers could have known the witness was going to recant her statement more than a year later. Mr Bailey said during a lunch break he became aware that a solicitor for the newspapers knew Ms Farrell was going to give false evidence. Mr Gallagher described that allegation as horrific and untrue.