Court rejects application to stop trial for murder of journalist Lyra McKee
By Claudia Savage, Press Association
An application to halt the trial of three men for the murder of journalist Lyra McKee has been rejected by a court in Belfast.
Her Honour Judge Patricia Smyth said that despite issues raised with evidence, including “deeply disturbing behaviour by an experienced police officer”, she did “not consider that there are no circumstances in which I could properly convict any of the defendants charged with murder”.
McKee, 29, died after being hit by a bullet as she stood close to police vehicles while observing rioting in the Creggan area of Derry on April 18th 2019.
The New IRA claimed responsibility for the death.
Three men from Derry – Peter Cavanagh, 37, of Mary Street, Jordan Gareth Devine, 25, of Bishop Street, and Paul McIntyre, 58, of Kells Walk – are on trial at Belfast Crown Court charged with her murder.
They are also facing other charges connected to the shooting and the rioting.
Six other Derry men are on trial on charges including rioting and throwing petrol bombs.
They are: Joseph Patrick Barr, 37, of Sandringham Drive, Jude Forest Coffey, 28, of Gartan Square, Joseph Anthony Campbell, 25, of Gosheden Cottages, Patrick Anthony Gallagher, 33, of John Field Place, Christopher Joseph Gillen, 45, of Balbane Pass, and Kieran George McCool, 57, of Ballymagowan Gardens.
Another man accused of rioting and throwing petrol bombs on the night of the murder died during trial proceedings last year.
On Friday, Judge Smyth told the court it was up to the prosecution to “prove that the gunman possessed and fired the gun with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, and whether that intention was also held by the defendants”.
“Having considered all of the evidence, I do not consider that there are no circumstances in which I could properly convict any of the defendants charged with murder,” she said.
“With regard to the remaining defendants and the remaining charges, the weaknesses in the identification evidence are apparent and ultimately, the weight that should be attached to it, taking into account any supporting evidence, is a matter to be determined at the end of the trial.
“Having considered the evidence as a whole, I do not consider that there are no circumstances in which I could properly convict any of the defendants charged with the remaining offences.”
Judge Smyth said she was required to rule on a number of issues in deciding whether the defendants had a case to answer, including the admissibility of evidence from an MTV documentary filmed at the time and identification evidence given by police.
Presenter Reggie Yates and a camera crew were making a film about republicans opposed to the Northern Ireland peace process in the period leading up to traditional commemorations in the city to mark the 1916 Easter Rising against British rule in Dublin.
The defence had objected to the inclusion of that footage on the grounds of its authenticity and procurement, but Judge Smyth ruled that the footage had not been unlawfully obtained.
She described the footage as “clearly relevant, since it shows the events as they occurred and is, at the very least, prima facie authentic and admissible”.
“There is no evidence at all to suggest that it is not reliable and authentic,” she said.
The defence also raised an objection on the fact that a member of the PSNI Major Investigation Team had shown footage, which included masked rioters, to a group of police officers – referred to as “the Waterside viewing” – in advance of the formal controlled viewing procedure to make identifications.
The judge did not accept that the evidence established bad faith or was intended to falsely identify, but said the incident “can only be regarded as deeply disturbing behaviour by an experienced police officer who displayed an unhealthy desire to identify the perpetrators at any cost”.
She ruled that this evidence should be excluded because its inclusion would be “so unfairly prejudicial to the defendants”, but overall she was “satisfied that the defendants could still receive a fair trial”.
On balance, she said the trial should proceed because “of the important public interest that those charged with grave crimes should be tried when weighed against the competing consideration that the court should not convey the impression that the end justifies the means”.
The judge also noted that there was no evidence that the senior investigating officer was aware of “the Waterside viewing” prior to Crown counsel raising the query, and no fault was attributable to the Public Prosecution Service.
