Gerry Adams may have ‘deluded’ himself over IRA membership, Court hears

By Nina Massey, Press Association Law Correspondent

Gerry Adams may have “spectacularly deluded” himself into thinking he was not in the Provisional IRA (PIRA) by virtue of his leadership role, the UK high court has heard.

On Monday, journalist John Ware gave evidence at the civil trial being brought against the former Sinn Féin president by victims of three bombings in England.

Jonathan Ganesh was injured in the 1996 London Docklands bombing; John Clark is a victim of the 1973 Old Bailey bombing in London; and Barry Laycock is a victim of the 1996 Arndale shopping centre bombing in Manchester.

The three men allege that Mr Adams was a leading member of the Provisional IRA on those dates, including of its Army Council, and are seeking £1 in damages.

Adams denies ever being in the Provisional IRA and is defending the claim.

Ware told the court in London that he reported extensively on the Troubles, has made many documentaries about the conflict since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, and interviewed many people in connection with these stories.

He said his interest in Adams was “sparked by the direction” in which he seemed to be taking the Provisional IRA.

He said in his witness statement: “I’m as satisfied as I can be from the reporting I have done that, in 1983, Adams was also a member of the Provisional IRA ruling Army Council… and that he was one of the single most influential strategists in the Republican movement.”

Ware added: “I don’t know if Adams has persuaded himself that he wasn’t in the Provisional IRA by virtue of his strategic and leadership role, as opposed to being the person who pulled the trigger or planted the bombs, as it were.

Adams does keep insisting that he was never in the Provisional IRA, while the rest of us are metaphorically open-mouthed at his chutzpah, given the sheer weight of evidence from his colleagues, comrades, and other sources. However, if that is Adams’s position, then he has spectacularly deluded himself

“My only reason for referencing this is because Adams does keep insisting that he was never in the Provisional IRA, while the rest of us are metaphorically open-mouthed at his chutzpah, given the sheer weight of evidence from his colleagues, comrades, and other sources.

“However, if that is Adams’s position, then he has spectacularly deluded himself.”

The witness also told the court a documentary he made in 1983 examined the Provisional IRA position Adams held at the time of that year’s election “as told by sources that I was satisfied were very much able to know and speak about the same”.

The court heard this included members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch, but also former and serving members of the Provisional IRA who had allegedly known Adams from the start of his IRA and Provisional IRA membership.

In his statement, he continued: “It clearly grated with many of them that when Adams said that he strongly supported the armed struggle, his denial of actual Provisional IRA membership allowed him to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions.

“Adams seemingly elevated himself to a higher moral plane than the Provisional IRA, when it was they who were sacrificing life and limb – as they would see it – for a cause Adams was leading.

“In short, they saw Adams’s denial of Provisional IRA membership as insufferably hypocritical.”

Edward Craven KC, representing Adams, put to Ware that he was “desperate” for this evidence to be part of the case.

The witness replied: “Certainly not.

“If the suggestion is I am here to grandstand, absolutely not.”

At the start of the trial last week Craven said that Mr Adams “emphatically, unequivocally and categorically denies” ever being a member of the IRA.

He also said that people such as British officials, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or other republicans opposed to the peace process had an interest in discrediting Mr Adams, the barrister added.

In written submissions, Craven said: “The defendant’s alleged factual and legal responsibility for the claimants’ injuries is strongly contested, as is the claimants’ ability to bring these claims against the defendant several decades after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.”

The trial before Justice Swift is expected to end this week, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.