Witnesses in Gerry Adams trial should not be anonymous, court told

By Danny Halpin, Press Association Law Reporter

A witness due to give evidence against Gerry Adams in a forthcoming civil trial should not be anonymous because he has “published multiple articles in his own name”, the UK High Court has been told.

Three men who were injured in Provisional IRA bombings on the UK mainland in the 1970s and 1990s are bringing legal action against the former Sinn Féin president for just £1 in damages.

John Clark, a victim of the 1973 Old Bailey bombing in London, Jonathan Ganesh, a 1996 London Docklands bombing victim, and Barry Laycock, a victim of the 1996 Arndale shopping centre bombing in Manchester, all allege that Adams was a leading member of the Provisional IRA on those dates, including of its Army Council.

Adams denies that he had any role in the Provisional IRA and is opposing the claim, which will go to trial on March 9th.

Edward Craven KC, for Adams, said in written submissions for a hearing on Friday that there is “no cogent evidence” that two anonymous witnesses due to give evidence in support of the three men would face any risk if their identities were revealed.

He said: “The claimants’ solicitors did not disclose that one of the two witnesses, witness B, has published multiple articles under his own name.”

He added that those articles “expressed detailed views about various issues concerning the Troubles” and that the witness had “openly published such information about his past roles in Northern Ireland”.

The barrister also said that there were no references to fears for their safety in the witness statements given to the court.

He said: “If they held genuine and objectively well-founded fears for their safety if their identities were to become public, then one would logically have expected those fears to be reflected in those witness statements.

“The absence of any reference to such fears in those statements is therefore significant.”

Anne Studd KC, for the three men, said anonymity for the witnesses should continue, after an order made in August last year.

She told the court that one witness said in his statement that he believes “the Provisional IRA or people associated with it still exist”.

She added: “This case is very likely to increase interest again in these issues and this witness, with his past experience, is concerned about that.”

In written submissions, she said: “The claimants concede that the statements in support here do not go as far as to provide the court with objective evidence upon which it could be satisfied as to real and immediate risk to life or serious harm.”

She continued: “However, there is clear and cogent evidence of objective and subjective risk of harm which is far from fanciful in the context of this claim.”

In response to one witness publishing articles under his name, she said “the circumstances where the witness has given previous information publicly previously is very different”.

Ms Studd also applied to include more witnesses being able to give evidence at trial, which Mr Justice Swift allowed.

The judge also said that the application last year to anonymise the two witnesses was not made correctly.

He said: “Therefore, the appropriate course will be to discharge the order and consider again whether the anonymity sought by witness A and witness B should be granted.”

He continued: “In the meantime, the order that has been made must remain in force.”