Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 2nd June 2008, day 27

Click here to download the LiveNote version
















held at:
The Interpoint Centre
20-24 York Street
Belfast BT15 1AQ

on Monday, 2nd June 2008
commencing at 1.00 pm

Day 27









1 Monday, 2nd June 2008

2 (1.00 pm)

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips.

4 MR PHILLIPS: Sir, may I make two brief procedural

5 announcements. The first is that we have amended the

6 schedule of witnesses for this week and have handed out

7 an amended copy today.

8 The significant change is that Mr Ware, who was due

9 to come, I think, on Friday morning, is now going to

10 come on Monday afternoon at the beginning of next week.

11 So far as this afternoon is concerned, the

12 second witness, Cindy Wasser, will be the first of our

13 witnesses on the videolink and it will be necessary to

14 have a longer than usual break so that everything can be

15 set up for that.

16 Then finally, sir, the other point I wanted to make

17 at this stage is about progress. In our sessions to the

18 end of the week before last, 23 witnesses were called

19 and another 59 witnesses' statements were taken into

20 account, meaning that the total so far processed, if I

21 can put it that way, by the Inquiry is 82.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.


24 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

25 MR PHILLIPS: Mr McIntyre, can you give us your full names,





1 please.

2 A. James Gerard McIntyre.

3 Q. Thank you. Do you have your statement to the Inquiry in

4 front of you on the desk?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. Can we have it on the screen, please. It is at

7 RNI-813-157 (displayed).

8 If we turn over, do we see your signature at

9 RNI-813-168 (displayed) and the date of 10th April last

10 year?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, can I ask you first of all about your position

13 within the Department of Foreign Affairs in the Irish

14 Government. Do you have a copy of this chart?

15 A. Yes, I do.

16 Q. Can we have it on the screen, please (displayed).

17 Thank you. So, can you help us, please. In 1997 at

18 the beginning of that year, where were you based within

19 the chart?

20 A. At the beginning of 1997 I worked elsewhere in the

21 Anglo-Irish Division in a section which does not appear

22 on this chart. And insofar as, I think, the Tribunal is

23 interested, from October 1997 to May of 1998 I worked in

24 the justice and security section of the division as

25 a first secretary.





1 Q. Thank you. So far as your postings thereafter were

2 concerned, in paragraph 3 of your statement you tell us

3 that at the end of May 1998 you moved to the North/South

4 Division. Is that, again, a section or division which

5 doesn't appear on our chart?

6 A. Yes. Sorry, I should have referred to section in that

7 instance, rather than division.

8 It is one of the sections within the division where

9 I worked, as I mentioned, from the end of May 1998 until

10 I was posted abroad in August 1999.

11 Q. So far as we are concerned, therefore, the relevant

12 period of your evidence is, then, is it,

13 between October 1997 and May 1998?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. Thank you. Now, during that period -- can you help us,

16 please -- what was your role?

17 A. As I mentioned, I was first secretary in the security

18 and justice section of the Anglo-Irish Division dealing

19 with a range of security and justice issues and also

20 with parades issues. And I would have fed into the

21 processes, the procedures, that existed under the

22 Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, whereby we had

23 a structure, a formal structure, for raising issues and

24 concerns through the machinery of the Anglo-Irish

25 Agreement and, in my case, specifically insofar as





1 security and justice issues were concerned.

2 Q. You say in your statement that you would -- this is

3 paragraph 7 at RNI-813-158 (displayed) -- travel up to

4 Belfast to meet people. Were you a traveller within

5 that section?

6 A. Yes, and a traveller within that sense -- traveller also

7 had another meaning in Ireland -- yes, we were referred

8 to as travellers. We also referred to it as contact and

9 information work whereby I did not just travel to

10 Belfast; I would have travelled elsewhere within the

11 North.

12 Q. So that your work -- we heard evidence last week from

13 Mr McKee, for example. He was also a traveller, I

14 think, wasn't he?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did he in fact take over your job when you left

17 in May 1998?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 A. He was also my predecessor. So he was both my

21 predecessor and my successor.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 In paragraph 35 of your statement, which is on

24 page RNI-813-164 (displayed), you refer in the last

25 sentence there to your remit. Can you just help us with





1 that, please. What was your remit while you were

2 working as a traveller?

3 A. Well, it was contact and information work, an

4 opportunity to meet with a range of contacts,

5 solicitors, NGOs, community activists, politicians,

6 et cetera. And the information that was shared with us

7 as part of that process allowed us to form a view on the

8 situation with regard to certain issues and, where we

9 had concerns, to raise them through the machinery via

10 what we referred to as the Irish side of the Secretariat

11 in Belfast.

12 Q. But were the issues to be covered within your remit

13 themselves defined by the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

14 A. I don't recall the extent to which the Agreement went

15 into detail with regard to definition of issues, but the

16 administration of justice was an issue and a regular

17 agenda item on the meetings of the conference.

18 Q. As I understand it, you would feed material in or make

19 reports which would go to the Irish side of the

20 Secretariat?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And you had no direct involvement in what happened

23 thereafter; is that right?

24 A. Well, yes, that's correct. I mean, just to be clear,

25 the Irish side of the Secretariat were my colleagues





1 from the Department of Foreign Affairs with whom various

2 sections in our Anglo-Irish Division would have been in

3 regular and daily contact, and we would in many cases be

4 formally requesting that they would raise particular

5 issues.

6 Obviously, they also would have had, in working

7 alongside their colleagues on the other side -- they

8 would have had a range of formal and informal contacts

9 and would also have been in a position to themselves

10 raise issues when they saw it as appropriate.

11 Q. You explain that in paragraphs 10 and 11 of your

12 statement at RNI-813-158 and RNI-813-159 (displayed).

13 Can I you ask you about your side of the process,

14 though. You put the material, the reports, in to the

15 Irish side. What was the process for you finding out

16 what had happened at the end of the process?

17 A. My colleagues on the Irish side would have -- would have

18 followed up -- there was a system of logging reports and

19 they would then have been -- off their own initiative,

20 they would follow up to chase up responses where we had

21 not received them.

22 So there would have been an element of that being

23 done on the initiative of colleagues in the Secretariat,

24 and then also there would have been instances where the

25 section in Dublin would ask them to follow up, to chase





1 up issues on which we had not yet had a formal response.

2 Q. But, as I understand it from your statement -- this is

3 the last sentence at paragraph 10 on the top of

4 RNI-813-159 -- you would get reports back from the Irish

5 side?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. They would be in writing, would they?

8 A. Yes, in some cases there would have been oral reports

9 but in most cases there would have been written -- the

10 transmission of written responses which the Irish side,

11 as we referred to it, would have received from the

12 British side, as we refer to them.

13 Q. Can I ask you specifically in this context of documents

14 to look at paragraph 13 of your statement. You say in

15 the third sentence that you are hampered slightly in

16 your ability to recall precise events by having no

17 remaining papers which refer to this time. Then you

18 make this comment:

19 "We are in the practice here of shredding notes as

20 we are often dealing with confidential information."

21 In the course of preparing your statement and,

22 again, today preparing to give evidence, you have seen

23 material generated in 1997 and 1998. Are you conscious

24 of there being gaps in that material?

25 A. Yes, I mean, these are events that happened ten years





1 ago.

2 Just to clarify that remark, I have served in my

3 career in a range of different positions and it is often

4 my practice to keep notes and to keep diaries from

5 certain posts and certain periods. But this would have

6 been, given the sensitivity and the confidentiality --

7 this would have been a period where I deliberately would

8 not have retained notes.

9 Therefore, where I can, I have sought to clarify or

10 to interpret the documents, the notes that I drafted

11 which are attached to my witness statement.

12 Q. Do you have any real recollection of these events other

13 than based on what you read in the documents?

14 A. Very little at this point ten years on.

15 Q. Right. Thank you.

16 So far as Rosemary Nelson herself is concerned, you

17 say that you first became aware of her as a result of

18 your files. This is paragraph 13. Do you see that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can you remember, after you took up your post

21 in October, when you would have had your first contact

22 with her?

23 A. My best guess is that it would have been actually

24 in November. I didn't take up my post at the beginning

25 of October and my recollection is that it was towards the





1 middle of that month. And while I cannot say so with

2 certainty, I would say on balance my first contact with

3 her was probably -- based on the documentation and

4 files, would probably have been in the second half

5 of November of 1997.

6 Q. Can help us with whether the contact was initiated by

7 her or by you?

8 A. I cannot say with certitude, but I would -- it probably

9 would have been a phone call from her, I would imagine.

10 Q. And during the eight months you occupied this position,

11 roughly how often would you be in contact with her?

12 A. It would have been infrequent. I would say probably

13 contact of a total of no more than four to five times in

14 total over that period, and in two phases. There would

15 have been two or three contacts around that period, I

16 think, 18th to 20th November, around that period, and

17 then I had contact with her in early March, as we will

18 see later a report of the meeting -- a phone

19 conversation I had with her in early March.

20 Q. And apart from that meeting, which we will look at in

21 a minute, would the contacts have been over the

22 telephone?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And in general would the calls have been made by her to

25 you?





1 A. Generally, yes. There may have been one or two

2 occasions when I would have been following up with her,

3 getting back to her to let her know what follow-up was

4 happening with regard to issues she had raised with me.

5 But generally speaking, the contact would have come from

6 her.

7 Q. You tell us in your statement at paragraph 16 that it

8 wasn't unusual to have contact with solicitors from

9 Northern Ireland. Can you help us with a number,

10 a figure, of lawyers you would have spoken to during

11 your eight months in post?

12 A. Given that I did not spend a very long period of time

13 working in that section, my experience was probably not

14 a typical one. I do recall having had contact with some

15 other solicitors, but I would say in total I could count

16 the number of solicitors I had contact with during that

17 period on one hand.

18 Q. Is the comment in paragraph 16 more about your general

19 understanding of what your section did and the sort of

20 contacts it had in the North?

21 A. Yes, I would have been aware that there was contact in

22 the past, including with Mrs Nelson.

23 Q. Yes. You then describe, as it were, the first passage

24 of contacts between you and, as you said earlier, I

25 think, it started the next month, in November.





1 What I would like to ask you about first, please, is

2 this: when you took over the job from Mr McKee, were you

3 aware from reading the files that there had already been

4 contact between Rosemary Nelson and him in relation to

5 this Duffy case?

6 A. Yes, I wouldn't necessarily have been aware of very much

7 of the detail but I would at least have been aware that

8 there had previously been contact with her regarding

9 that case, yes.

10 Q. And were you aware of what sort of role the Irish

11 Government had played in dealing with matters earlier in

12 relation to Colin Duffy?

13 A. I cannot recall. I may not have been -- I would, I

14 think, broadly have been aware. I possibly would not

15 have been aware of the full detail of our involvement,

16 engagement.

17 Q. Can you look, please, at RNI-831-143 (displayed).

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. This is a note from another official to you. It is

20 dated 17th November.

21 A. The 18th.

22 Q. The 18th, I am sorry. And was this from an official on

23 the Irish side of the Secretariat?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Back to you?





1 A. Yes, that's correct.

2 Q. And it looks as though there had, by this stage, already

3 been some discussion or contact between you. Can you

4 remember that?

5 A. Yes. My recollection is that I would have had telephone

6 contact with colleagues to alert them to the fact that

7 concerns, issues, had been raised with me and that I

8 would be putting those in writing. And it would appear

9 that this then came from the British side on their own

10 initiative prior to something being submitted by

11 ourselves, which happened, I think, the following day.

12 Q. So do you think that by this time, 18th November, you

13 had already spoken to Rosemary Nelson about this new

14 Colin Duffy case?

15 A. I would think so.

16 Q. And can you assist us from your own recollection with

17 why she rang you and what she wanted to tell you?

18 A. The report which I forwarded the following day would

19 have detailed, I think, the issues and concerns that

20 would have been raised with me by Rosemary Nelson. I

21 possibly, but I cannot say with certainty, may have also

22 had contact from others and perhaps one or two NGOs, but

23 I can't at this stage recall the number of contacts we

24 would have had on this issue, but I would be confident

25 that Rosemary was one of the people who spoke to me





1 about this issue.

2 Q. It is clear, isn't it, from the documents that you were

3 contacted by a number of people of whom she was only

4 one?

5 A. I wouldn't say that is clear. I recall having contact

6 with Rosemary. I may have had also contact from others,

7 but I can't at this remove say that with certainty.

8 Q. Can we just look, please, at the note that you sent the

9 next day, and this is RNI-831-141 (displayed).

10 So this is from you, isn't it, dated the 19th, the

11 next day, as I say, to a senior official in the

12 Secretariat on the Irish side?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. Do you see in the first line:

15 "We have received complaints concerning police

16 actions"?

17 It's right, isn't it, that you were alerted to what

18 had happened by people other than Rosemary Nelson?

19 A. That is my recollection, yes.

20 Q. You suggest in your statement, don't you, that you think

21 the first contact may not have been from her, but from

22 somebody else?

23 A. I'm --

24 Q. Do you see paragraph 17?

25 A. I do. I am partly basing this on the fact that in





1 raising this issue I don't simply refer to her as the

2 sole source of such complaints.

3 Q. If you turn over to RNI-831-142 (displayed) at

4 paragraph 5, it is put this way, isn't it, where you

5 refer to:

6 "The feeling among local moderate Nationalists"?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So does it follow that a number of people contacted you

9 and expressed these views to you?

10 A. Yes. As I worded it in that way, I would imagine that,

11 yes, I had at least two contacts with regard to this

12 issue.

13 Q. So at a very early stage of the criminal process, just

14 after the arrest, you were receiving contacts presumably

15 in Dublin?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. From a number of people, not just the lawyer, about the

18 case?

19 A. Yes, and this would not be unusual.

20 Q. Sorry?

21 A. This would not be unusual, for people to make contact in

22 response to particular incidents.

23 Q. Can you remember -- this is now your second month in

24 post -- had it happened to you at any stage since you

25 started in that role?





1 A. Had what happened?

2 Q. What you have just described as not being usual,

3 ie being telephoned by a number of people in the early

4 stages of a criminal process?

5 A. I recall over the period of time that I would have

6 served in that section that there would have been other

7 cases where I would have been contacted by more than one

8 person with regard to a particular incident, yes.

9 Q. Can you remember now how many people telephoned you?

10 A. No, I cannot recall.

11 Q. Right. So you set out the details presumably as you had

12 been provided with them.

13 Is it possible for you to help us with which parts

14 of the information set out here came from

15 Rosemary Nelson?

16 A. At this point, no, I would have difficulty.

17 Q. You see, in paragraph 3, for example, if you look at

18 that, at RNI-831-141 (displayed), there are a number of

19 rather pointed questions about the case.

20 Do you think it is possible that those questions

21 were suggested to you by Rosemary Nelson?

22 A. On balance they perhaps would, but I cannot say that

23 with certainty.

24 Q. No. What about the assertions in paragraph 4 about the

25 strong evidence of a pattern of harassment?





1 A. Again, I don't recall specifically.

2 Q. Can you help us with the names of any of the other

3 people who contacted you?

4 A. At this point I may have been contacted by one or two

5 NGOs, and beyond that, other than that, I cannot recall

6 at this point.

7 Q. This memo -- if we go back to the full screen, please --

8 at RNI-831-141 (displayed) was passed by you to the

9 Irish side, wasn't it?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you say in paragraph 6 on the next page, RNI-831-142

12 (displayed):

13 "I would be grateful if this matter could be raised

14 in the strongest possible terms."

15 What was it about this particular case that made you

16 make that request?

17 A. I would have been aware of the previous issues we would

18 have raised concerning this individual and would have

19 had concerns regarding the wider impact on the

20 community, the potential for difficulties in the Lurgan

21 and Armagh areas. That would have been a factor in

22 requesting that it be raised in the strongest terms.

23 It would reflect -- my request for it to be raised

24 in those terms would have reflected the degree of

25 concern that would have been felt regarding the issues





1 raised.

2 Q. You say in your statement that in all cases, as I

3 understand it, you exercised a sort of filtering

4 mechanism. This is paragraph 35 on RNI-813-164

5 (displayed).

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So that, as I understand it, you could satisfy yourself

8 that points made to you, concerns raised, were genuine.

9 Can I ask you, in this particular case, what

10 filtering, what process of filtering did you go through?

11 A. Firstly, can I say that that comment in my witness

12 statement would have been in response to a specific

13 question from the solicitors for the Inquiry and would

14 have referred in general terms to how we treated this

15 request.

16 However, in the case of this contact, I would have

17 been aware that Rosemary Nelson had previously been in

18 contact with colleagues, predecessors in the post, and

19 that we would have, on foot of those contacts, raised

20 the issue so the question of bona fides, credibility didn't

21 arise. It was a given, as far as I was concerned.

22 Q. Can I just be clear about that, the first thing you said

23 in relation to your witness statement. What you

24 actually say in the second sentence of 35 is:

25 "We filtered all the concerns which were raised with





1 us."

2 Do you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is that right?

5 A. Yes, insofar as we could do so, yes.

6 Q. But as I understand it, what you are saying then is that

7 in this case, Rosemary Nelson's bona fides had already

8 been established before you took up your job?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. By your colleagues in earlier times?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And therefore, as I understand it, you accepted what you

13 were told by her and passed it on in this note?

14 A. Yes. If I could add, in certain situations the

15 information that would have been provided would not just

16 have been provided by Mrs Nelson.

17 Q. No. For instance, you mention NGOs; is that right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you remember who it was who contacted you from the

20 NGO?

21 A. On this specific case, no, but there would have been

22 reasonably regular contact with NGOs like the Commission

23 for the Administration of Justice, British Irish Rights

24 Watch, et cetera.

25 Q. Can we just return to paragraph 3 of the note -- it is





1 RNI-831-141 (displayed) -- and the three questions.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you remember I asked you whether you thought they may

4 have been questions suggested to you by Rosemary Nelson?

5 Did you receive an answer to those questions, that you

6 can remember?

7 A. I don't recall receiving specific replies on those

8 specific aspects, but replies were received on general

9 terms on the concerns raised.

10 Q. Can you remember during your eight months in post ever

11 asking questions of that very specific kind in relation

12 to other cases?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. You can?

15 A. Yes, I can.

16 Q. In those situations, would the questions have been

17 suggested to you by the lawyers?

18 A. In some cases by the lawyers or by whoever would have

19 been in contact, and in other cases it would have been

20 as part of the process of putting together the material

21 that had been gathered. I would have phrased questions

22 myself. So it would have been a mixture.

23 Q. So sometimes a bit of give and take on both sides, as it

24 were?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. Yes. By definition, you were asking questions about the

2 criminal process that had already begun in

3 Northern Ireland?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Realistically, did you expect to get an answer other

6 than, "This matter is now being dealt with in the

7 criminal proceedings"?

8 A. In some cases, yes, in some cases, no.

9 Q. Was the point rather more to let the British side know

10 that the Irish side had concerns and that they were

11 keeping this case under scrutiny?

12 A. That would have been an important element: to raise

13 a flag that there were concerns about a particular

14 incident or a particular case and to highlight that this

15 might be a particular case that we might need to come

16 back to later on and, if necessary, raise more formally

17 through the machinery of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. So

18 it was sometimes what I might refer to as an early

19 warning system.

20 Q. Was it -- be frank about this, please -- was it more

21 important --

22 A. I would hope I have been frank all the way along.

23 Q. Was it more important to ask the question than to find

24 out what the answer might be?

25 A. Ideally, if possible, it was helpful to us, not least in





1 terms of the relationship with interlocutors, to get

2 whatever information we could, but I would be inclined

3 to agree with your proposition that in many cases it was

4 more to put down a marker, to register concerns about

5 a particular case.

6 Q. And now, going back to paragraph 4, which is at the

7 bottom of this same page, RNI-813-141 (displayed), you

8 say:

9 "We are concerned that there is strong evidence of

10 a pattern of harassment by the police."

11 Is the evidence you are referring to there -- do you

12 think that is what you go on to say in the same

13 paragraph?

14 A. Obviously this and other reports would have been, you

15 know, informed by the contacts I would have received.

16 So what I said there is based on what would have been

17 raised with me and also, I suppose, our own experience

18 of dealing with particular cases up to that point.

19 Q. That is really what I am getting at. Was the evidence

20 you are talking about there really limited to what the

21 individual contacts had told you on the telephone or was

22 there something else that you were relying on?

23 A. It would be an element of what we had been told or what

24 had been raised with us and our own anecdotal evidence

25 in particular cases also.





1 Q. And this presumably, in relation to this particular

2 case, would have been based on matters which had

3 happened before you took up your post?

4 A. I would imagine so, yes.

5 Q. Going back to paragraph 6 on the next page, RNI-813-142,

6 and the comment you made which I have asked you about

7 already, "the strongest possible terms", was that

8 a standard formula or was it something you reserved for

9 particularly worrying or important cases?

10 A. Obviously, it would be important for us to have

11 a hierarchy of concerns that every single issue we

12 raised wasn't being raised in the strongest possible

13 terms. So, yes, that would be a correct assumption,

14 that we did have a hierarchy.

15 Q. So it was not something you used, as it were,

16 invariably?

17 A. No.

18 Q. No. And is it fair to suggest to you that your decision

19 to use it here may have been based on the way in which

20 the points were made to you by the contacts?

21 A. It would have taken account of the range of points, the

22 seriousness of those points, as we saw them, and our own

23 knowledge and anecdotal evidence. So it would -- that

24 decision would have been informed by a range of

25 considerations.





1 Q. Can I just ask you finally about this document. Would

2 you have made notes at the time?

3 A. Well, yes, I would have made notes at the time of any

4 phone calls that I would have taken and then would have

5 prepared, drafted, my report to the Irish side, based on

6 those notes of contacts and phone conversations.

7 Q. Can I take it that these notes are included amongst the

8 material you believe to have been shredded?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. The first document we looked at was at RNI-831-143; the

11 same file, 831. Can we just go back to that briefly,

12 please (displayed).

13 Do you see in the second line -- and again, you have

14 mentioned this -- that the British side appear to have

15 raised this case without, as it were, waiting for the

16 Irish side to do so. Do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And can you look, please, at the document in which that

19 was done and it is RNI-111-030.500 (displayed).

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Just so I am clear about this, as I understand this

22 document -- and I appreciate you are not its author --

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. -- and you certainly weren't its primary recipient, but

25 this was a document produced by the British side





1 alerting the Irish side to the fact of the arrest and to

2 the circumstances in which it had taken place?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And as far as you know, this was before any question was

5 raised by the Irish side about the case; is that right?

6 A. No, it was before any written report had been submitted,

7 but in the course of that day I would have been in

8 contact with colleagues on the Irish side about the

9 concerns that were being raised and to put them on

10 notice that I would be forwarding a report.

11 So this could well have been in response to it

12 having been orally and informally raised by the Irish

13 side prior, as I say, to the formal raising of the

14 issues in writing the following day.

15 Q. If you look at RNI-831-143, it may help (displayed). Do

16 you see in paragraph 1?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And that is dated the same day as this, the 18th. Do

19 you see?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. It looks, doesn't it, as though it hadn't in fact been

22 raised at that point?

23 A. It depends on one's interpretation of "on their own

24 initiative", whether it was prior to awaiting something

25 formally in writing from us or whether it was on foot of





1 the issue having been raised. It is a question of

2 interpretation.

3 Q. In other words, we may be right, may we, to read the

4 first line as:

5 "While we have not yet formally raised ..."

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So it may have been raised informally?

8 A. Yes, you may or you may not.

9 Q. Yes. Again, you may not be able to help us with this,

10 but was it unusual to receive from the British side

11 advanced notice of an arrest in any particular case?

12 A. In my experience, yes.

13 Q. Did it happen at any stage in any other case during your

14 eight months in post?

15 A. I don't recall it happening. That isn't to say that it

16 didn't happen in one or two other cases, but I do not

17 have any recall of it happening in other cases.

18 Q. Taking this story forward, at RNI-831-144 (displayed) it

19 looks as though there was further communication back to

20 you from the Irish side, the same day, 18th November?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And again, it looks as though the initiative here had

23 come from the British side, doesn't it:

24 "The British side have informed us ..." that there

25 were related disturbances. And that is paragraph 3, you





1 see there. So this material appears to have come in

2 then during the evening, late evening possibly, of

3 18th November?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Rather before you sent your report of the next day,

6 which we were just looking at. Do you see?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What I wanted to ask you is this: Do you think that the

9 way this was being handled and the news you had received

10 the night before about disturbances, do you think that

11 played any part in your decision to say that the matter

12 should be raised in the strongest possible terms?

13 A. I would -- looking at it from this remove, I would say

14 that is the case, and I would suggest also that the

15 response by the British side on this issue suggests that

16 they also recognised that there were concerns and issues

17 here.

18 Q. It appears, doesn't it, that they were taking it

19 seriously as well and that they were not waiting to be

20 asked for information; they were in fact providing it in

21 advance?

22 A. Well, whether this is in advance on this point I am not

23 quite clear, because we would have been raising the

24 issue in telephone contacts certainly in advance of the

25 formal written notification going to them. But this is





1 the case; the situation is something that was raised

2 orally by the Irish side with the British side.

3 Q. If we look to the next document, RNI-831-146

4 (displayed), which is dated the 20th, so the day after

5 your report, back to the Irish side, it looks as though

6 you had spoken, perhaps spoken again, to Rosemary Nelson

7 and this time in relation to bail?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can I take it from your earlier answers that you don't,

10 beyond this document, have any other recollection of

11 what she said to you?

12 A. No, I think that that note is pretty self-explanatory in

13 terms of the issues raised and I do not have any

14 recollection beyond what is recorded in that document.

15 Q. So we can take it, can we, that the matters which are

16 set out here are matters that she put to you in the

17 course of your telephone conversation?

18 A. That would be a fair assumption.

19 Q. And that based on what you told us earlier, it is likely

20 that your note contains, as it were, an unfiltered

21 version of what you were told?

22 A. Yes, I mean, that is not to say that there weren't some

23 other issues that may have come up in the course of our

24 conversation, but any report -- any note would aim to

25 convey the essential points made in the course of a





1 conversation or a meeting and not purport to be a full

2 verbatim report. So there may have been an element of

3 filtering in terms of what was recorded and

4 forwarded on.

5 Q. Yes. Perhaps a fairer way of putting that would be

6 editing?

7 A. Editing, indeed.

8 Q. But you were not concerned, as I understand it, with the

9 validity, the veracity of what she was telling you?

10 A. No.

11 Q. No. Can you remember anything -- and it may be that the

12 answer is no, but please tell me -- about the

13 assassination attempt, which is referred to in the third

14 paragraph?

15 A. Not beyond what I record in that paragraph.

16 Q. No. In the final paragraph, you point out that the

17 setting of bail conditions is a matter for the courts

18 and then you go on to ask -- this is ask your

19 colleagues, the Secretariat -- to make strong

20 representations, at the very least to support

21 a relaxation of the bail conditions imposed.

22 Can I ask you the same question as I asked in

23 relation to the report. This is an ongoing criminal

24 case. Did you expect your views, your representations,

25 to be taken into account by the court?





1 A. Obviously our views were not being fed into the court,

2 but at the level at which the views were being fed in,

3 we had hoped that account would be taken of those

4 concerns.

5 Q. How did you think that would happen in practice?

6 A. Obviously there is separation between executive

7 judiciary, but -- I mean, it is significant that these

8 issues which we raised were accepted and we received

9 responses on them in due course.

10 Q. Well, you were certainly told, weren't you -- we can

11 look at that now, if you would like to --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. It is at RNI-831-147 (displayed). You were told in

14 response -- paragraph 2, 1st December, back to you from

15 the Irish side -- that in fact the conditions were

16 varied the day after your report, the 21st, and indeed

17 the British side passed on the information that

18 Rosemary Nelson could apply at any time to the

19 High Court for the conditions to be further varied.

20 That was the response that you received eventually,

21 wasn't it?

22 A. Yes, including confirmation that the views had been

23 drawn to the attention of the police and the DPP.

24 Q. Yes. That is the next thing I wanted to ask you about.

25 So in fact, as I understand it, you learnt





1 10 days/11 days later that your points had been passed

2 over, both to the police and to the senior official

3 responsible for the conduct of prosecutions?

4 A. This would have been the written record for the files.

5 We probably would have been aware of this orally prior

6 to receipt of this formal note.

7 Q. And getting back to the question I asked you before, is

8 that what you expected to happen?

9 A. We raised what we considered to be genuine concerns

10 given the circumstances and we had hoped that due

11 account would be taken of that -- of those concerns.

12 Q. In your statement, you refer to this point in general

13 terms in paragraph 34 -- and this is at RNI-813-163

14 (displayed) -- and it is in the context of this document

15 we have just looked at, do you see, which you deal with

16 in 32?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And at 34, you say in the second sentence:

19 "The British side would say that this was an issue

20 for the courts or the DPP which were independent in the

21 exercise of your functions."

22 And presumably the same applies in the Irish

23 Republic as well?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So far as we are able to tell, the next stage of this





1 contact in relation to this Colin Duffy matter comes

2 a little while later in December.

3 What I wanted to ask you about the 1st December

4 note, however, was this: when you got the British side's

5 suggestion that the solicitor could apply to the

6 High Court, did you pass that suggestion on to

7 Rosemary Nelson?

8 A. I would imagine so. I cannot recall. I take this, in

9 any event, as something that Rosemary Nelson would have

10 been aware of herself.

11 Q. You say in paragraph 32 and the penultimate sentence:

12 "I would have relayed the contents of this fax to

13 Rosemary Nelson."

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. So when you got an answer to a point raised in these

17 sorts of circumstances, you would report back to the

18 original source of the concern or the information, would

19 you?

20 A. Generally, yes.

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. This was -- we saw this as important if people were

23 raising concerns, that we would feed in through the

24 machinery provided for it that it was important, from

25 our point of view, that there was feedback, that people





1 would see their concerns were being raised, were being

2 fed in and that the -- from our point of view the

3 machinery worked.

4 Q. So can we take it, therefore, that in relation to other

5 contacts about this case, the NGOs you mentioned

6 earlier, you would have again reported back to them

7 whatever had come back to you from the British side?

8 A. Generally speaking, yes.

9 Q. To keep them updated also?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And for the same reasons?

12 A. Yes, generally speaking.

13 Q. In those reporting conversations with Rosemary Nelson,

14 you say in your statement that her attitude was one of,

15 as you put it, general frustration and exasperation, and

16 is that something you remember being consistent through

17 the various conversations you had with her about the

18 case?

19 A. That would be my -- as I said earlier, this is ten years

20 ago, but that would be my recollection and my sense of

21 a -- a recurring pattern in the total of four or five

22 conversations I would have had with her during my period

23 in that section.

24 Q. And you refer earlier in your statement, for example,

25 at 25 at RNI-813-161 (displayed), to frustration and you





1 also say that she was particularly angry.

2 Again, is that a fair summary of her mood in these

3 conversations when she spoke to you about this

4 Colin Duffy case?

5 A. This would be my interpretation of -- the manner in

6 which I recorded these conversations satisfies me that

7 that would be a fair description of her mood.

8 Q. Can we look again, then, at RNI-831-141 (displayed). Do

9 you remember I asked you about this in general terms

10 earlier and specifically whether the tone of it and the

11 way it was pitched owed anything to the contacts and the

12 way they were speaking to you.

13 Do you think it is likely that her particular tone,

14 the anger which she expressed to you, was reflected in

15 the way you expressed yourself in this memo at

16 RNI-813-141 (displayed)?

17 A. Perhaps, but even at this remove, looking at the

18 questions, I consider them to be valid, reasonable

19 questions in the circumstances.

20 Q. But as I understand it, throughout this period of

21 contact in November/December 1997, that was her mood,

22 was it, frustration and anger?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You, I think, dealt with a number of other solicitors

25 during the course of your eight months in post; is that





1 right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you come across a lawyer talking in this impassioned

4 way about a client at any other stage?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You did?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So there wasn't anything particularly unusual or

9 striking about the way she spoke?

10 A. No, it came across to me as just a very committed,

11 professional, concerned legal practitioner.

12 Q. Can we look, please, at the next stage of this, which is

13 at RNI-111-030.505 (displayed). This is a formal

14 response and it sets out in paragraph 2 more general

15 matters.

16 Do you remember earlier you drew a distinction

17 between specific concerns and then more general

18 concerns? We have seen the correspondence about bail.

19 This is more general. The information being passed back

20 to you here is that ministers are aware of the concerns

21 which have been expressed by your government, and there

22 have been meetings with Mr McGuinness and indeed the

23 matter has been raised with the Chief Constable. And

24 the British side then goes on to explain their position,

25 which is, on the one hand, that harassment by the police





1 is not acceptable, either to Government or

2 Chief Constable, but also a note is made that there had

3 been, at that stage at any rate, no condemnation of the

4 consequential rioting.

5 Do you remember we saw reference to that earlier?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you remember getting this note or the information

8 that it contained passed back to you?

9 A. I have no recollection of seeing that.

10 Q. There appears to be a gap here in our files. That is

11 why I asked you that.

12 But it suggests, doesn't it, not just in relation to

13 bail, that, again, the matter is being taken to a very

14 high level and apparently approached very seriously by

15 the British Government?

16 A. As I haven't seen the note previously, I would prefer

17 not to --

18 Q. That is what it obviously suggests, doesn't it?

19 A. Yes, it suggests --

20 Q. The matter has been taken up to ministers?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. There are high level meetings and the matter has been

23 drawn to the attention of the head of the

24 Northern Ireland Police Force. In terms of taking it

25 seriously, there wasn't a great deal more that could be





1 done on the other side at this point, was there?

2 A. I am not sure I have anything to add to that. As I say,

3 I haven't seen this note previously.

4 Q. Well, again, can I ask you this: based on your eight

5 months of experience and the other cases you discussed

6 with other lawyers, can you think of a case in which

7 this sort of high level involvement in the concerns you

8 had expressed ever took place?

9 A. I would recall there could have been very few such

10 cases.

11 Q. Do you think there was another case?

12 A. I cannot say, I can't recall.

13 Q. You can't bring one to mind now, at any rate?

14 A. Not right now.

15 Q. If you look on, please, to RNI-111-030.506 (displayed),

16 this is a note to the British side on the same point;

17 this time, bail. It is not signed by you, the name has

18 been redacted.

19 Do you have any recollection of this note and these

20 points being raised on 20th December?

21 A. The fact that it is titled "A Note to the British side"

22 means it is a note that would have come from the other

23 side, so from the Irish side of the Secretariat. It

24 would have come, as I say, from the Irish side of the

25 Secretariat rather than from headquarters.





1 Q. So your involvement, if any, would have been in passing

2 the matter to the Irish side?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Thank you. And the final piece of the jigsaw we can see

5 at RNI-831-148 (displayed), and this does come back to

6 you from the Irish side. It looks as though it is in

7 response to the note we have just seen and, again,

8 information is being passed back to you, isn't it?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. That there has been a further variation in the bail

11 conditions.

12 Can I ask you, Mr McIntyre, did you have any further

13 involvement in this Colin Duffy case after this point?

14 A. No, beyond that point I don't recall any further

15 involvement.

16 Q. You told us that you left your post in May 1998?

17 A. Yes, towards the end of May 1998.

18 Q. Do you have any knowledge or did you have any subsequent

19 involvement in what happened during the remaining course

20 of these proceedings?

21 A. No, as I moved initially to a different area of the

22 Anglo-Irish Division and then in 1999 I was posted

23 abroad on a posting, so I wouldn't have had any further

24 professional involvement in the case.

25 Q. Right. Returning to the question of your conversations





1 with Rosemary Nelson, can we look, please, at

2 paragraph 25 at the bottom of RNI-813-161 (displayed).

3 This is the paragraph in which you use the word

4 "frustration" and, do you remember, "particularly angry"

5 was the other expression you used? And over the page,

6 26, again "frustration and anger".

7 What I just wanted to ask you is this: in your

8 conversations with Rosemary Nelson at this

9 time, November/December 1997, did she discuss her views

10 of the RUC generally?

11 A. No, I have no recollection beyond comments she would

12 have made regarding particular clients' situations that

13 she had raised with me.

14 Q. It looks from the statement as though she did talk to

15 you about comments passed back to her by clients -- and

16 this is paragraph 29. Do you see that, lower on the

17 page, RNI-813-162 (displayed)?

18 A. My recollection was that that was in the context of our

19 discussion in March, which we haven't yet come to.

20 Q. No. So that is what I wanted to clear up with you,

21 because in your statement it gets introduced at this

22 point.

23 So am I right to take it that at this

24 stage, November/December, your conversations with her

25 concerned -- and solely concerned -- the Colin Duffy





1 case?

2 A. That is my recollection, yes.

3 Q. So any frustration and anger about the police was in

4 relation to that case?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thank you. When, then, do you think you became aware of

7 other work, for example, her work for the Garvaghy Road

8 Residents Coalition?

9 A. I would have been aware of her work with them, but this

10 is not an issue that -- perhaps to do with the calendar

11 and the timing of our contacts, given that they were

12 from November to March/April period, but I do not recall

13 having had any contacts with Rosemary with regard to any

14 parades issues, even though I would have been aware of

15 her involvement, as I say, with the Garvaghy Road

16 Residents Coalition.

17 Q. So as I understand it, then, you knew about the Garvaghy

18 Road involvement?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. But you didn't discuss it at any point with her?

21 A. No, it didn't arise in our discussions.

22 Q. You did discuss the question of comments being passed

23 back by clients, but that wasn't until March the

24 following year?

25 A. That's my recollection. I don't think it came up -- I





1 mean, I have recorded in a small number of reports my

2 conversations with her. Unless it is recorded in

3 my November reports, I don't think so. Then the first

4 occasion on which it probably arose would therefore have

5 been in early March.

6 Q. Can you just look at 31, please, at the top of

7 RNI-813-163 (displayed), just so we can be clear about

8 this. Do you see the way you put it there? It is

9 slightly different, the first sentence. Do you think it

10 is possible that in November you discussed clients other

11 than Rosemary Nelson?

12 A. Sorry, I don't understand. Clients other than

13 Colin Duffy?

14 Q. Sorry, other than Colin Duffy, yes.

15 A. I don't recall. Certainly, the main focus of our

16 contacts in that period was on Colin Duffy. I do note

17 that my conversation with her in March did concern

18 another client of hers, but my recollection is that the

19 main focus at least of the earlier discussion was on

20 Colin Duffy.

21 Q. Did you mean in this sentence, which has caused some

22 confusion at our end, did you mean possibly other

23 clients involved in the incident, i.e. the incident that

24 gave rise to the charges of assault?

25 A. Yes, because there were other individuals involved and





1 I, therefore, would -- apologies if I was a little bit

2 loose in my drafting.

3 Q. This isn't a reference to comments passed back from

4 other clients. It is a reference, as I understand it,

5 to possibly other clients involved in the incident which

6 had given rise to Colin Duffy's arrest; is that right?

7 A. That is how I would read my own writing, yes.

8 Q. Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. We will have a 10-minute break

10 now.

11 (2.09 pm)

12 (Short break)

13 (2.22 pm)

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips.

15 MR PHILLIPS: Mr McIntyre, can you look, please, at

16 RNI-183-030.056 again (displayed).

17 Do you remember I asked you about this document, do

18 you remember, and you said that this was an Irish side

19 document produced within the Secretariat, and I told you

20 that there was a bit of a gap so far as we were

21 concerned as to, as it were, your end of things?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. But is it likely, based on the material we have looked

24 at so far, that this note to the British side was based

25 on material that you put in to the Irish side?





1 A. I don't recall this. It is possible that it might have

2 been, but it is also possible that it is material that

3 was put in directly from the Irish side based on maybe

4 information that they had established, you know -- that

5 was communicated directly to them. That is

6 a possibility also.

7 Q. Do you see in the second paragraph there is a reference

8 to the Secretary of State's letter of 9th December?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Can we have a look at that, please, RNI-105-180

11 (displayed).

12 Does this help to jog your memory? Do you remember

13 seeing this letter?

14 A. I don't particularly but I may have seen it.

15 Q. But anyway, this note we were looking at,

16 RNI-111.030.506 (displayed), is not something that you

17 can recall?

18 A. No.

19 Q. And the issues in it, you can't recall them either?

20 A. No.

21 Q. The reason I am asking all this of course is because the

22 report that came back came, came to you?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you remember we looked at that together,

25 26th December?





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Presumably the way the system usually worked was you put

3 in your material, they put it forward to the British

4 side, they would then report back to you what had

5 happened?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Does that, which is at RNI-831-148 (displayed), make it

8 likely because you were the addressee of that note,

9 weren't you, that you had been the original, as it were,

10 reporter into the Irish side?

11 A. It is possibly the case, but not absolutely the case.

12 Q. You can't take that any further?

13 A. No, unfortunately.

14 Q. No. Moving on to the note of 3rd March, which you have

15 already mentioned, I think, as I understand what you

16 were saying earlier, you had no contact in relation to

17 to Rosemary Nelson between December, the Colin Duffy

18 matter, and the conversation that you had with her

19 in March the following year; is that right?

20 A. That's right. I don't recall any contact in between.

21 That wouldn't of itself have been unusual, because

22 contact was very often a factor of issues arising.

23 Q. Yes, issues arising for the contact rather than you?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Yes. Can we look, please, at RNI-111-031 (displayed).





1 This is your note of 3rd March, isn't it?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can I ask first about the copyees. Who was

4 Secretary Gallagher?

5 A. Secretary Gallagher at the time would have been Second

6 Secretary Gallagher who at that point was head of the

7 Anglo-Irish Division, who is now Secretary General of

8 the department.

9 Q. At this stage, therefore, he was the Secretary General

10 of the DFA; is that right?

11 A. No, at this point he carried the title of Second

12 Secretary and was the head of the Anglo-Irish Division

13 department.

14 Q. I see, right. And then the Joint Secretary, that is the

15 Joint Secretary in the --

16 A. Yes, the Irish Joint Secretary of the Secretariat, yes.

17 Q. Right. So these were both senior officials, senior to

18 you within the DFA?

19 A. Yes, both the senior official in the Anglo-Irish

20 Division and, as you say, the Irish head of the

21 Secretariat.

22 Q. Thank you. As I understand it, this is a note of

23 a single conversation in which you were contacted again

24 on the telephone by Rosemary Nelson; is that right?

25 A. That's my recollection, yes.





1 Q. And I think that there is an error in the very first

2 line, isn't there?

3 A. Yes, I should have referred to Lurgan-based rather than

4 Newry-based, yes.

5 Q. And you describe her in your statement as having been

6 particularly concerned and agitated, and that is

7 something that you can recall now, is it?

8 A. Yes. I mean, if I recorded it as such in my note of the

9 conversation, that would be the case.

10 Q. Yes. Now, what had prompted her telephone call?

11 A. My recollection, and as the note suggests, is that it

12 was the arrest of a client of hers some days previously.

13 Q. The note, the first part of it, concerns a particular

14 client with the cipher C200, doesn't it?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. The way you address this in your statement suggests that

17 the conversation went rather wider than that and that

18 the issue of other clients and messages about her being

19 passed back via them was also discussed in your

20 conversation; is that right?

21 A. Yes, my recollection is that this would have been raised

22 by her with me, yes.

23 Q. At that stage, March 1998, were you aware that that more

24 general point, messages being passed back via clients,

25 had already been discussed with colleagues by her on





1 earlier occasions?

2 A. To the extent that I refer in the final sentence of

3 paragraph 4 to -- that I reminded her that we had raised

4 the issue of allegations against her through the

5 framework. To that extent, yes, I would have been aware

6 that allegations would have been brought to our

7 attention previously, prior to my joining the section,

8 and that these would have been raised by us through the

9 framework of the intergovernmental conference.

10 Q. These were matters then dealt with by colleagues before

11 you took up your position?

12 A. Prior to my taking up position, yes.

13 Q. What did she want from you?

14 A. As the report records, she raised the specific case and

15 then in the course of the conversation, she asked if it

16 would be possible for her to meet with the minister, the

17 Minister of Foreign Affairs, to discuss her case.

18 Q. Was it to discuss this particular case or the problem

19 more generally?

20 A. My recollection, and as the note records, is it was to

21 discuss things that had been said about her, allegations

22 that had been made against her.

23 Q. The note begins in paragraph 1 with a reference to

24 continuing allegations against her by the RUC. So what

25 did you know of those at the time you wrote this note





1 in March 1998?

2 A. I cannot recall how much I would have known -- this is

3 a record of my conversation with her. So it is a record

4 of what she said to me in the course of that

5 conversation.

6 Q. Again, can I just ask you about the process in which

7 this was drafted. Can I take it that you would have

8 made notes of the telephone conversation?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And that this is, as it were, a fair copy, an edited

11 version of that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And that the notes have met the fate of the other notes?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So far as its immediate destination, this note, is

16 concerned, we have looked at the copyees. What is

17 written at the top right-hand corner? Is that your

18 handwriting?

19 A. No, but I can actually --

20 Q. Can you interpret it?

21 A. Yes. It perhaps was written on the Irish side of the

22 Secretariat, and it is simply instructions to "please

23 PA", which means to put away on a relevant file.

24 Q. And is that the name of the file?

25 A. I would guess so, but it is -- would be a record of





1 a file held in the Irish side of the Secretariat rather

2 than a file held within the section in which I worked.

3 Q. So far as the specific comments that she made is

4 concerned, and particularly paragraphs 2 and 3, can you

5 recall any other details, relevant details, of the

6 conversation in relation to these matters or is the note

7 the most we are going to get, as it were?

8 A. I would have recorded the salient and the most important

9 points. So this is ...

10 Q. As I understand it, she asked for a meeting with

11 a minister, an Irish government minister; is that right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And instead, you counter-proposed a meeting with you?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The purpose of it being to have a discussion of the kind

16 you mentioned earlier and for you to, as it says here,

17 take details of the more recent incidents. Do you see

18 that in paragraph 4?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did you have that meeting with her?

21 A. I recall meeting her. I only ever had one meeting with

22 her. My recollection is that that probably did happen

23 shortly after this -- I prepared this note.

24 I recall we met in a coffee shop. I can't recall

25 where. I think it was in Belfast, but it may possibly





1 have been within Lurgan, but I think Belfast is more

2 likely. And that we met for 20 minutes for a cup of

3 coffee and a brief conversation.

4 Q. The plan, as set out in the note, was that once you had

5 got the details you would raise them with the other

6 side?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you remember getting more details from her in that

9 meeting?

10 A. No, I recall the meeting was quite short and was quite

11 general and would have gone over the sort of ground that

12 probably had been covered previously. And on the basis

13 that -- I have no record of having received -- if I had

14 received details, I would have recorded them and fed

15 them into the system. So this -- it would seem that I

16 didn't receive further details at that point.

17 Q. So you are inferring, are you, as it were, by absence

18 that, what, that you didn't take the matter forward?

19 That you didn't get sufficient detail? That you decided

20 not to pursue it? What do you think actually happened

21 after the meeting?

22 A. If there had been material which would have enabled us

23 to take the matter forward, it would have been recorded

24 and fed into the system.

25 It is possible that this meeting would have happened





1 some time in -- after this, so in March or April.

2 I left the section in May. I am not sure if this merely

3 may have emerged subsequently, after my departure, that

4 I am unaware of, but certainly if any -- if any material

5 had been provided in the period following this, it would

6 have been recorded.

7 Q. You would have expected it to have been recorded, put

8 into a report by you, passed to the Irish side and then

9 eventually some response passed back to you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Have you seen any evidence in the material that you have

12 been shown to suggest that that happened?

13 A. I have only been shown material in relation to my own

14 involvement in that period from November to -- up

15 to May 1998. So beyond that, I cannot comment. I

16 haven't seen any later papers.

17 Q. No. In this same paragraph, 4, you describe her as

18 being very worried?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you see that? In the conversation you had on, I

21 think it was actually on 2nd March?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did you discuss her security with her?

24 A. I don't recall there being any discussion of her

25 security situation other than that she raised her





1 concerns.

2 Q. Right. Again, you can't help us with what might lie

3 behind that description:

4 "She is very worried"?

5 A. My recollection is that it is a record of her sharing

6 with me that she was worried.

7 Q. About what, though?

8 A. I don't think she would have qualified what exactly. I

9 would suspect that it might relate to security concerns,

10 but I am in danger of seeking to interpret at this stage

11 what was recorded then, so I prefer not to.

12 Q. You see, you tell us in paragraphs 43 and then 46 of

13 your statement that, as you put it:

14 "Her own safety was raised with me"?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And what I am trying to establish from you is whether it

17 was raised with you by her in the context of this

18 telephone conversation or at the subsequent meeting.

19 Can you now remember?

20 A. It would, I think, have been raised in this

21 conversation, because the follow-up meeting was to

22 discuss what had been raised during this telephone

23 conversation.

24 Q. So is it likely then that the expression of her being

25 very worried did indeed relate to this question of her





1 safety?

2 A. Possibly, yes.

3 Q. And can you remember how the issue arose in the course

4 of this conversation on 2nd March?

5 A. I can't recall the circumstances. It perhaps -- the

6 conversation was perhaps in the sequence in which the

7 paragraphs have been recorded.

8 Q. Well, you say in 43 that you do recall her own safety

9 was raised with you. This is in the context of the

10 meeting.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And we also would have gone over some of the previous

13 ground, which is the point you made earlier?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. "... Colin Duffy, and the comments which she had been

16 told were being made to Colin Duffy and others about her

17 by the RUC."

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you remember any detail of that now?

20 A. Other than the comments that -- the direct quotes that

21 are in paragraph 3 of the report of 3rd March

22 concerning -- other than that, no.

23 Q. In 46, you refer again to the question of safety. As I

24 understand it, you are drawing a distinction there

25 between her own position and that of her clients. Is





1 that fair?

2 A. She would have raised, I think -- both issues would have

3 come up in the course of that conversation.

4 Q. On 2nd March?

5 A. On 2nd March, yes.

6 Q. And is it then that she expressed to you her concerns

7 about collusion, which you also mention in this

8 paragraph?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What did she say?

11 A. There is a reference to information falling into the

12 wrong hands, I think was the quote in the report.

13 Q. Sorry, so I am clear about that, are you saying that

14 this expression comes from the note at RNI-111-031?

15 A. I have the report of 3rd March on my screen. I do not

16 have -- you are also referring now to the witness

17 statement which I do not have in front of me.

18 Q. Right, okay. It is at RNI-813-166 (displayed).

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you see it is the last sentence?

21 A. Yes, which I have seen. Yes. This, as I say, was my

22 interpretation of her comments to the effect that this

23 information could fall into the wrong hands.

24 Q. What did she mean by that or what did you understand her

25 to mean by that?





1 A. I understood her to mean, as the direct quote suggests,

2 that confidential, sensitive information could, in the

3 hands of the local police, could fall into the wrong

4 hands.

5 Q. So what sort of confidential and sensitive information

6 do you mean?

7 A. Concerning her clients and their security.

8 Q. So you remember, do you, her using this expression,

9 "falling into the wrong hands"?

10 A. I am looking at my witness statement where it is in

11 quotation marks, so it would suggest to me that it is

12 therefore drawn from one of the reports which I wrote.

13 So it would, therefore, represent a quote.

14 Q. That is what I am trying to glean from you. You have

15 told us very fairly that your recollection is, broadly

16 speaking, limited to the documents. So we are using the

17 documents as much as we can.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. This, as you say, comes in quotation marks?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You think it may come from a report. It doesn't appear

22 to come from the report of the conversation on

23 2nd March, and that is what I am trying to get you to

24 help us with. Do you think it may come from another

25 report?





1 A. I would guess it does, therefore, come from another

2 report because it is in quotation marks, but I can't

3 shed any further light on that.

4 Q. It doesn't appear, does it, to be a report that you saw

5 or referred to in the course of your statement?

6 A. At this point, I cannot say. I note it is in quotation

7 marks and, therefore, I would imagine that that gives it

8 a status, but I cannot shed any further light on it at

9 this point.

10 Q. In the end, as I understand it, you can't help as to

11 whether that is a direct quote from a report or a quote

12 of what you think she may have said to you?

13 A. That's correct, I cannot at this stage.

14 Q. If it was in a report, is there any reason why that

15 should have been shredded?

16 A. No.

17 Q. No?

18 A. I mean, just to be clear, I am talking about notes used

19 to prepare reports having been shredded. There has

20 never been the suggestion on my part that any actual

21 reports would have been shredded.

22 Q. That is why I ask.

23 A. It is important to clarify that.

24 Q. So if it is a quotation from a report, that report

25 should still exist?





1 A. It should, yes.

2 Q. Thank you. In relation to the client, C200, whom you

3 mention in the first half of the report, were you aware

4 at the time this was written that a complaint --

5 complaints, in fact -- had been made by her on his

6 behalf?

7 A. I don't recall.

8 Q. No. In essence, if it is not in the note, you can't

9 recall?

10 A. Not at this remove.

11 Q. No. So far as the second half of the report is

12 concerned then, this is about a completely different

13 issue, namely Mr Cumaraswamy's report?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Had you had, can you remember, any involvement in that

16 issue before this conversation with Rosemary Nelson on

17 2nd March?

18 A. No, not that I recall.

19 Q. No. And again, so far as we are concerned, can I take

20 it that if further information was given to you in this

21 conversation about this issue by Rosemary Nelson, you

22 can't recall it now?

23 A. It would have been -- you can take it that anything of

24 significance that was mentioned to me at the time is

25 recorded in the note.





1 Q. Thank you very much.

2 A. Thank you.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McIntyre, thank you for coming to Belfast

4 to give your evidence to the Inquiry.

5 A. Thank you.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: We are going to break off now for at least

7 20 minutes. It may be a little longer than that. The

8 announcement will be made when we resume so that the

9 videolink can be established before we proceed.

10 (2.50 pm)

11 (Short break)

12 (3.20 pm)

13 MR PHILLIPS: Can you hear us? Could you begin by either

14 swearing or affirming the witness, please.

15 MS CINDY WASSER (affirmed)

16 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

17 MR PHILLIPS: Ms Wasser, can you give us your full name,

18 please.

19 A. It is Cynthia Rae Wasser.

20 Q. Thank you. Do you have in front of you a hard copy of

21 your witness statement to the Inquiry?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. And I am going to try and experiment now. We will try

24 and get your statement also on the screen. It is

25 RNI-824-066 (displayed). Now, can you see that, the





1 statement on the screen?

2 A. We can see it. We can't read it unless you zoom in

3 on it.

4 Q. Right. Can we use this as a chance to experiment. Can

5 you enlarge, please, this first page of text,

6 paragraphs 1 and 2? Is that clear?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Excellent. Let us leave it on the screen.

9 You tell us in your very first paragraph that you are

10 yourself a lawyer, practising in Toronto?

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. And as I understand it, you are a barrister, you are an

13 advocate and you appear in criminal cases in court; is

14 that right?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. What I would like to ask you some questions about is

17 your involvement with the Information on Ireland

18 Campaign?

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. Can you tell me first, what sort of organisation is it?

21 A. Well, I am not a member of the organisation, so I can't

22 provide you with many details, but I know it was a group

23 of Canadians, some were lawyers, some were not, who were

24 interested in the issues involving the Troubles, the

25 problems in Northern Ireland, and wanted to bring





1 attention to other Canadians what was going on there.

2 So they got together and researched information,

3 travelled to Northern Ireland to meet with politicians

4 and community leaders over there to learn more about the

5 problems experienced by the communities and to see what

6 those communities wanted of Canadians in order to bring

7 international pressure to the problem so that Canada

8 could become more involved in helping the peace process.

9 Q. Thank you. And as I understand it, you -- you have said

10 to us you weren't a member --

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. You were contacted by one of the members, who is

13 Mr McConnell?

14 A. That's right.

15 Q. And invited to join a trip to Northern Ireland later

16 that year in July 1998?

17 A. That's right. One of the things the Information on

18 Ireland Campaign did was organise groups of Canadians as

19 international observers during the parades season

20 in July, and I believe they had gone several years prior

21 to the year that I was asked to join, so Mr McConnell

22 asked me to come that year predominantly as

23 a representative of the Association in Defence of the

24 Wrongly Convicted, which is a group that I was

25 a director of in Canada that deals with wrongful





1 conviction cases.

2 We were pretty new at that time and AIDWIC was very

3 interested in the work that was going on in England

4 surrounding the wrongful convictions, the Birmingham

5 Seven (sic), et cetera. And the Information on Ireland

6 Campaign had organised tours of the H blocks, the

7 Maze Prison, and also a meeting with [name redacted], who

8 was one of the big wrongful conviction cases in England.

9 They thought that I might be interested in that or

10 AIDWIC might be interested in that, and of course we

11 were, and I was asked to go on that basis.

12 Q. As I understand it, at that point, the time you were

13 invited to join the group, you didn't yourself know

14 a great deal about what was going on in

15 Northern Ireland; is that right?

16 A. Shamefully, that is correct. The media reports in

17 Canada -- the media reports in Canada on almost every

18 international aspect are very poor. The national

19 newspapers gave us little bits, but it was quite

20 superficial and I had a superficial knowledge of the

21 issues. I took it upon myself to do some reading.

22 Q. How did you get together the material to make yourself

23 better informed?

24 A. I asked the people of the Information on Ireland

25 Campaign to recommend particular readings and just did





1 my own sort of Internet search. One of the books that

2 was highly recommended to me was one called "The

3 Troubles". I tried to read as much of that as possible

4 in the time that I had and I found that very, very

5 enlightening.

6 Q. As I understand it, it was in the course of that reading

7 and research that you came to know about

8 Rosemary Nelson; is that right?

9 A. I learned more about Rosemary through some of the people

10 at the Information on Ireland Campaign who had met her,

11 I believe, the year before when they were there

12 in July 1997.

13 They met Rosemary and there had been an incident

14 involving her and the RUC, and they had told me a little

15 bit about this lawyer. And I don't even know if they

16 had mentioned her name that much to me. It was just

17 that there had been lawyers who have had problem was the

18 police and lawyers who have problems in defence of their

19 client, and that was an issue that they thought I would

20 be interested in as well.

21 Q. If you look at your statement at RNI-824-067

22 (displayed) -- that is the middle of the second

23 paragraph. Do you see the very top of that page?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. What you say is that you became aware of her and the





1 problems she was encountering with the RUC as a result

2 of her defence of alleged IRA terrorists?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. What problems were those?

5 A. Rosemary, as I understood it from the people who had met

6 her the year before, was trying to help some of the

7 community people during the course of the parades and

8 representing the families of people in the community who

9 had been harassed or beaten or killed in incidents, and

10 had clients who were considered to be IRA terrorist

11 types.

12 And she had expressed her concerns to some of the

13 members of the international observers in the summer of

14 1997, and she was being harassed by the police. As I

15 understand it, that summer she was on the line during

16 one of the marches and was actually assaulted by the

17 police.

18 Q. So --

19 A. Or by the military, I am not sure.

20 Q. Either by the police --

21 A. Or the military.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 A. Or the military, because they were guarding the roads at

24 the time. I am not sure which one it was. It may have

25 been the police.





1 Q. But this information that you gleaned was information

2 passed on to you by other members of the Information on

3 Ireland Campaign?

4 A. That's right, at that time it was.

5 Q. It wasn't based, for example, on anything you read on

6 the Internet or in the media?

7 A. I don't believe so, no.

8 Q. No. You then tell us that you, as a result of hearing

9 about her, were keen to meet her.

10 Can I ask you this: did you think, before you met

11 her, that your experiences as criminal lawyers were

12 likely to be similar?

13 A. I am not sure that I spent a lot of time thinking about

14 what it was going to be like to meet Rosemary. I was

15 certainly interested in the issues that had been

16 expressed to me because of the kinds of cases I had

17 worked on in the past that were not considered to be,

18 you know, publicly sympathetic.

19 And I have a very, very strong views on lawyers

20 taking on tough cases. I think it is our professional

21 responsibility. So it was a natural concern of mine to

22 feel connected, I suppose, to a woman, a criminal lawyer

23 who was a woman who was taking tough cases and then

24 being harassed for it.

25 But I was more -- it was more, well, it will be





1 interesting meeting her. It was really very simple at

2 that point. There was so much going on for me in going

3 on that first trip.

4 Q. It looks as though you first met Rosemary Nelson during

5 the course of your visit in July that year, 1998?

6 A. That's right.

7 Q. It looks as though you met her at the very place where

8 the marching, the parades, took place; in other words,

9 at the Drumcree Community Centre in Portadown. Is that

10 right?

11 A. That's right, yes.

12 Q. So we have understood this then, the primary purpose, as

13 I understand it, of the visit was for you to observe the

14 march in 1998?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. And the meeting with Rosemary Nelson was presumably,

17 therefore, just one of a number of meetings and

18 discussions that took place during your visit?

19 A. That's correct. You know, I was asked to be an

20 international observer, but I was chosen because of an

21 aspect of the trip that was going to occur after the

22 marches, which was meeting [name redacted]. So there was

23 really -- the focus for me was the meeting with

24 [name redacted].

25 Q. To be clear, he was someone who was either on remand or





1 serving a sentence in prison, was he?

2 A. He was serving a sentence and was the first life person

3 that the Commission had found was wrongfully convicted

4 and was going to have his case reviewed.

5 Q. Thank you. What did you know before you arrived in

6 Northern Ireland about the work Rosemary Nelson was

7 doing to do with the marching?

8 A. Very little. I think the people from the Information on

9 Ireland Campaign had told me she had represented a chap

10 named Hamill, who was killed by a bunch of people in the

11 community. It was believed that it was a number of

12 Protestants who beat him up on the street one day, and

13 the issue was that there was a police vehicle nearby and

14 it was believed by people in the community that the

15 police had witnessed this and turned their heads away,

16 and she was actually suing on behalf of the Hamill

17 family.

18 I also understood that she had represented, prior to

19 that, someone named Duffy, Colin Duffy, I believe, who

20 was considered to be a terrorist, and she -- as a result

21 that of work, people in the community came to her more

22 and more to express their concerns about what happened

23 during the parades season and to lodge complaints. And

24 she sort of fell into this role as counsel to the

25 community, so to speak.





1 Q. Thank you. Can we look, please, at a document -- I hope

2 we can get this on the screen for you. It is at

3 RNI-830-141 (displayed).

4 Can you see that, first of all? Can we enlarge the

5 bit under the heading "Monday, July 6th" please

6 (displayed).

7 A. It might be helpful if you can describe the document.

8 Q. Oh. Well, it is a single page we are looking at. It is

9 in fact an extract from the report which the

10 organisation prepared on your return from

11 Northern Ireland in the summer of 1998. And this page

12 is during a chronological narrative of what you did, who

13 you met and what discussions took place.

14 A. I don't believe that was made available to me but I may

15 have my own copy that of report, which I brought. If

16 you could just give me a moment. It doesn't have your

17 numbers on it. Okay, I have my own.

18 Q. Excellent. Have you found this page --

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. -- which takes us to 6th July?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. As I understand it, this is the meeting you refer to in

23 your witness statement to the Inquiry, ie where you meet

24 at the community centre, you spoke about the

25 Robert Hamill case and there you met Rosemary Nelson,





1 who was described in the report as being the

2 Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition solicitor. Do you see

3 that?

4 A. Yes, and I should just point out I did not author this

5 report, although there is a document that I actually

6 sent in of my own report. This is a combination of

7 a number of people producing this report for the

8 Information on Ireland Campaign, but this is -- this

9 section you have shown me is the description of the

10 meeting where I first met Rosemary.

11 Q. Thank you. You tell us in your statement at paragraph 4

12 that it was at this meeting that she told you about

13 comments being passed back to her by her clients.

14 Do you see that in paragraph 4, the second sentence?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Just so I am clear about this, that discussion you had

17 with her, who else was present on that occasion?

18 A. As I recall it, [name redacted] was there as well, and the

19 way I remember it happening was we were sitting around

20 the table at the community centre and I only recall it

21 being [name redacted], myself and Rosemary at the table, and

22 there might have been people coming and going but not

23 really being a part of the conversation.

24 Q. So there may have been just the three of you, then?

25 A. That is how I recall it.





1 Q. Thank you. Did she, in the course of describing what

2 had happened to her clients, give you any names or any

3 more particular details about these cases?

4 A. Not that I recall.

5 Q. No. As I understand it, your reaction to these comments

6 was that this was familiar in the sense that you had

7 experienced something a bit like it, at any rate, in the

8 course of your own work in Canada. Is that a fair

9 summary?

10 A. A bit like it.

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. A bit like it is the emphasis, not quite.

13 Q. Yes, and you regarded it as a badge of honour, as you

14 put it in your statement?

15 A. Yes, I think when you are dealing with a threat from a

16 witness or someone else, you don't want to take it all

17 that seriously in my line of work or you would stop

18 working early on. But, you know, you do tend to say to

19 yourself, "It must have been a good cross-examination

20 I did" or something like that.

21 Q. So what was different about what you were hearing from

22 Rosemary Nelson?

23 A. I think what I recognised right away was that she

24 probably had reason to be fearful, whereas I never felt

25 I did.





1 I think lay people who know me and would hear about

2 a threat I may have had would be frightened, but in my

3 world I wasn't. Rosemary was working in a different

4 atmosphere politically. Her country was at war

5 literally, whereas mine wasn't, and the threats that

6 I got were from witnesses as opposed to police officers.

7 Police officers didn't necessarily threaten me as

8 much as say things and comment in a derogatory manner

9 about me, but what I always felt was happening deep down

10 inside is they were saying, "Woah, she's good, she made

11 me miserable on the stand for two days. I hate her."

12 But if they got in trouble, I might have been the person

13 they would have called. So hence the badge of honour,

14 so to speak.

15 But in Rosemary's case, it was clear to me that the

16 derogatory comments and the threats were based on

17 something very different, based on a culture that made

18 it easier for them to follow through and encouraged them

19 to continue, whereas my culture would put it down very

20 quickly.

21 I could go to the police if I received a threat from

22 a witness or a client and it would be taken very

23 seriously, and I would be well protected or the best the

24 police could offer me, in any event, and judges never

25 made derogatory comments about me that I heard of





1 anyway. Quite the contrary. Whereas Rosemary would be

2 subjected to derogatory treatment by judges in

3 a courtroom, that kind of thing does not happen where

4 I come from unless counsel had really acted

5 incompetently and virtually deserved it and the judge

6 has lost his or her temper in the courtroom.

7 That generally would not happen. So there was a big

8 difference in the reality of the situation.

9 Q. Can I just --

10 A. I don't know if that describes it.

11 Q. Can I just pick up a couple of points arising out of

12 that.

13 First of all, concentrating on the police, you say

14 in your witness statement in the same paragraph, 4, you

15 remember thinking that the RUC had crossed the line in

16 terms of what they had said about Rosemary. In what she

17 described to you as you sat at the table, what was it

18 about that that made you think that the RUC had crossed

19 the line?

20 A. She had described learning from clients, for example,

21 that when asked if they had counsel, if they said

22 Rosemary Nelson, the police would say very derogatory

23 things in an effort to dissuade them from using her as

24 counsel.

25 Now, that was something that frequently happened





1 back in Toronto and in other places in Canada that I was

2 aware of from my legal research, the difference being

3 that if we had evidence of that and we brought that into

4 a motion to suppress a statement, it would generally

5 work. Whereas in her case, there wasn't that

6 opportunity --

7 Q. Can I just interrupt you to ask you about that

8 specifically, because again you say this in your

9 statement.

10 Did she tell you then that she had tried to raise

11 these issues in the course of subsequent hearings or

12 trials and that her points had not been listened to?

13 What was her complaint about that?

14 A. I believe exactly that: that she would complain that her

15 clients had been dissuaded by the police to use her as

16 counsel and that judges didn't seem interested in that

17 argument. It would go nowhere. And she had also raised

18 it with the police themselves in an effort to try to

19 stop this kind of behaviour, and that would go nowhere.

20 Q. So she told you, did she, specifically, that she had

21 raised complaints of this kind in the course of criminal

22 proceedings and that they had, you know, not had any

23 effect; is that right?

24 A. That is what I believe. I believe we did, because

25 I remember talking to her about the differences in our





1 judicial system and hers, in that if I had raised that

2 in an argument to suppress a statement, the judge might

3 consider it a breach of the rule of law and suppress the

4 statement accordingly under our charter.

5 Q. Did she give you any examples of a case, or a client's

6 case, where she had attempted to raise these points?

7 A. Not that I recall. I don't remember hearing her say

8 something in the case of R v Smith or whatever, nothing

9 like that, no.

10 Q. Is that the sort of question you think you would have

11 asked her, based on your own experience?

12 A. I don't think I was at that meeting going to ask her,

13 "Well, what case? Let me write a note of R v Smith

14 where you did this." It was more along the lines of in

15 general terms, this is how I would argue it back home

16 and do you do this here, and what is the state of the

17 law here versus what the state of the law is back home,

18 and it was very general.

19 Q. Was it possible that she said to you that her view was

20 that it wasn't worth raising points like this in the

21 course of hearings?

22 A. I suppose it is possible. I mean, you know, I did not

23 take notes of the meeting. It was a very long time ago.

24 I wouldn't want to sit here and say to you, no,

25 absolutely not, she didn't say anything like that.





1 What I remember is a very general conversation, so

2 I couldn't rule that out. I couldn't rule out that she

3 said she would try this or was it worth it. It could

4 have been either or both, I don't know. I am sorry. It

5 was so long ago.

6 Q. Not at all. Moving on through this same part of your

7 statement where, again, you are describing the

8 discussions you had, you say at the end of paragraph 4:

9 "From what Rosemary told me, I got the impression

10 that there was no respect for solicitors and barristers

11 in Northern Ireland."

12 What I wanted to ask you about that is no respect

13 from whom?

14 A. From the judiciary, mainly. I remember her expressing

15 concerns about clients who were mistreated by the guards

16 of the court house and when she would raise that in the

17 courtroom, the judiciary would also give her short

18 shrift and pay no respect to that issue. And I do

19 remember her telling me that there was a lack of

20 Catholics on the bench and that that was a concern, and

21 I thought that was surprising.

22 It seemed that what she described was a systemic

23 problem, not just a problem with Rosemary Nelson but

24 more systemic, in that the work was being done by

25 Catholic barristers and solicitors and there were few,





1 if any, Catholic prosecutors, no Catholic officers, no

2 Catholic judges and they were not treating the

3 solicitors and barristers with due respect.

4 Q. That is something you are reasonably confident, although

5 it is a long time ago, are you, that she actually told

6 you: that there were no Catholic judges on the bench?

7 A. That is what I recall, yes. And you know, it is hard

8 for me to remember verbatim conversation -- the

9 conversation we had that night, for so many reasons.

10 What I remember is the impressions that I had, and

11 so when asked to describe the foundation for the

12 impression, that is harder to draw back on so many years

13 later. I wish -- I really wish that I had -- I suppose

14 if we had the foresight of what was going to happen to

15 her a year later, perhaps I would have made greater

16 notes that of night, but I certainly wish even after

17 things happened that I had the foresight to go back and

18 write down as much as I could of all the conversations.

19 But it is more the impressions that I can -- that I can

20 give you a decade later.

21 It is very difficult to go back to verbatim accounts

22 and I am sorry for that.

23 Q. Not at all. But can I ask you on this specific point

24 about the judges: did you, during your trip or at any

25 stage after it, try to find out what the actual position





1 was in terms of non-Catholics on the bench at the time

2 in Northern Ireland?

3 A. No, I know that the Information on Ireland Campaign was

4 going to be presenting a report and I know that I had

5 shared the information with them.

6 I think I felt my role was complete at the end of

7 the trip. If anybody wanted me to get involved in any

8 international work, I had certainly let it be known that

9 I was available, I would be happy to do a follow-up and

10 there really wasn't a place.

11 I mean, our government hadn't decided to interfere

12 in that aspect of the problems of Northern Ireland. We

13 were doing other things at the time. But -- you know,

14 working on the peace negotiations and working on

15 surrendering of weapons. That wasn't my forte.

16 So it was sort of -- it was done. My work was done.

17 I had been a part of this process. I wasn't asked to do

18 anything further. I felt maybe back at home there were

19 smaller things I could do with bringing issues to light

20 to Canadian lawyers, such as the Criminal Lawyers

21 Association that I am a member of. That is mostly

22 a Toronto-centric group and I think I thought I would

23 organise a conference or, during one of their

24 conferences, organise a panel where I considered

25 bringing Rosemary and other international lawyers to the





1 panel to talk about the issues that go on in their

2 respective countries. That didn't materialise.

3 Q. Just going back to it my original question about the

4 judges, can I take it then that the sole source of your

5 information about whether all the judges were

6 non-Catholics was Rosemary Nelson herself?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Yes. And does the same apply in relation to your

9 comment about there being no respect on the part of the

10 judiciary or solicitors and barristers in

11 Northern Ireland?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. Were you aware at the time you were speaking to her that

14 judges in Northern Ireland began their careers as

15 solicitors or barristers?

16 A. I may have assumed, but -- because that would be the

17 case here -- or in Canada -- but I don't know that

18 I actually spent any time thinking about their

19 backgrounds in that respect.

20 Q. I simply wanted to ask you whether, based on your own

21 experience, it occurred to you to ask her why it was

22 that, as it were, they turned on their own on getting on

23 to the bench?

24 A. I don't think we had a very specific discussion about

25 it, only -- because of the nature of the evening itself





1 and also, you know, there were certain things I was

2 prepared to just listen to and let her have an evening

3 of venting her concerns.

4 Most of the conversation was centred upon her own

5 threats and the meetings that she knew we were going to

6 have with Mr Flanagan, and raising those concerns. But

7 I think in term of the judiciary issue which you are

8 interested in at the moment, you know, I think anywhere,

9 even in the best, in the most democratic, in the fairest

10 justice system -- and I happen to think Canada's is

11 superb -- every system will have its failings and we

12 always strive to make it better.

13 We have judges, you know, that I am familiar with in

14 Toronto who are rude and arrogant and disrespectful to

15 counsel, but there is always a bad apple in every

16 profession, isn't there? So you may assume that there

17 is going to be a judge who really isn't being very

18 judicious and the vast majority of them are very

19 respectful, very bright, a pleasure to be in front of

20 you and treat counsel appropriately at all times and are

21 very fair minded. And I think I was prepared to assume

22 the situation would be the same there. But perhaps

23 there are more judges perhaps who were of the bad apple

24 variety, given the cultural problems that were ongoing.

25 Q. Is this fair: if you look back at that sentence at the





1 top of RNI-824-068 (displayed), the one we have just

2 been looking at there -- we will enlarge it -- the

3 impression you got was in fact rather more nuanced than

4 that, that there were perhaps, as you put it, rather

5 more bad apples in Northern Ireland than in Toronto?

6 A. I would say that would be the case. You know, I am

7 writing about my impression as opposed to going on

8 a fact-finding mission at the time.

9 If I'd felt that I was about to endeavour on

10 a research project or become involved if any kind of

11 government intervention on behalf of Canada, I certainly

12 would have done something a little bit more than just

13 listen to Rosemary's view. I would have gone out and

14 done more fact-finding of other lawyers and done more

15 research. But it wasn't going anywhere. I was simply

16 listening to what was becoming a friend vent.

17 Q. Thank you. The other matter I want to ask you about in

18 relation to the meeting is what you describe in

19 paragraph 8 at RNI-824-069 (displayed), because you say

20 that she showed you a piece of paper which contained

21 a threat?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you see that there?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you go on to say:





1 "The threat she had received and which she believed

2 had come from the RUC ..."

3 Did she explain to you the basis for her belief?

4 A. She may very well have, and the memory that I have is

5 not of the words and her description but the impression

6 that I had, that she believed strongly that it came from

7 the RUC.

8 I do recall that there wasn't the strongest kind of

9 evidence; in other words, you know, I remember talking

10 to her about whether the envelope, the piece of paper

11 inside of it, could have been fingerprinted, but there

12 was likely so much contamination at that point. She had

13 shown it to Mr Flanagan. I remember asking her about

14 that. And so what I have provided to the solicitors who

15 took my statement is the best I could recall a decade

16 later.

17 Q. Again, just taking parts of that answer in turn, as I

18 understand it, you think that the account of the threat

19 note given by your colleague, who was with you, as

20 published in her book is an accurate account; is that

21 right?

22 A. I was prepared to go by her memory of it, because -- I

23 could no longer remember the words. I remember --

24 I have a picture of the document in my head and the size

25 of it and what she had shown us and I could recall





1 distinctly her taking it out of a white purse, but

2 I couldn't remember the words. And I knew that

3 Miss [name redacted] had written about it in her book and I was

4 prepared to accept that her recollection of it was an

5 accurate one.

6 But, you know, it was a refreshing of my memory, a

7 filling in of a gap, if you will, of my memory.

8 Q. Can we just look at that, please. It is at RNI-831-237

9 (displayed).

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Do you have that there? It is in the middle of the

12 page. This is an extract from the book -- I think it is

13 called "The Incidental Guru", isn't it?

14 A. Yes, that's correct.

15 Q. And just so everybody is clear, the incidental guru, I

16 think, is a dog?

17 A. That is right, Harry.

18 Q. His name is Harry.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. The dog belongs to the author; is that right?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. So in the middle paragraph, we see that she describes

23 the conditions or the circumstances in which the piece

24 of paper was pulled from the purse, and it says in the

25 last sentence, do you see, that:





1 "On the paper was written, 'you will die'"?

2 A. Right.

3 Q. Can you give us any more information about what the

4 piece of paper looked like?

5 A. I remember it being very small. It wasn't a legal size

6 or letter size paper; smaller than a post card, and just

7 a plain piece of paper.

8 Q. Was the message typed or handwritten?

9 A. I recall it as handwritten.

10 Q. Can you remember the colour of the paper?

11 A. I am probably filling in a gap in saying white. So

12 I wouldn't be certain, but white comes to mind.

13 Q. Can you look, please, at RNI-115-351 (displayed).

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Do you have that there?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. That has, as you can see, different words. Have you

18 ever seen it before?

19 A. I can't say if that is the piece of paper Rosemary

20 showed us that night. This is the right size, the right

21 format, and because I can't recall the words, I couldn't

22 identify it as the one. And it may very well be what

23 she showed us and that the words "you will die"

24 described in Miss [name redacted]'s book could be incorrect, I

25 don't know.





1 Q. Thank you. In your statement -- and as I understand it,

2 also in this same conversation, the first

3 conversation -- you say that she told you about direct

4 threats from police officers at the courthouse.

5 Can you tell us what she told you of those threats?

6 A. Well, again, to the best of my recollection, as

7 I previously described, she would complain of treatment

8 by the staff or the -- I suppose the guard staff about

9 her client and then she would be dismissed and they

10 would make comments to her that were derogatory, and if

11 she raised issues in the courtroom, the judge would also

12 summarily dismiss them. And the words that I did recall

13 from that were to the effect of, "Mrs Nelson, if you

14 continue to defend these people, don't expect anything

15 else to happen."

16 Q. Can I just --

17 A. That didn't --

18 Q. Can I just ask you, those words you have just used, were

19 they things said to her by police officers or by others?

20 A. As I recall it, it was a comment made to her by judges

21 and -- the gist of it -- I can't say that she had said

22 the exact words that a judge used to her was this or the

23 exact sentence, but the gist of it from judges, from

24 police officers, from the guards was that very same

25 complaint, "If you continue to defend these people,





1 don't expect any good treatment, any respect of from us,

2 don't expect any help from us, don't expect anything

3 else to happen". That kind of comment.

4 Q. So this was the response, was it, that she told you she

5 received when she complained about comments made

6 directly to her by police officers?

7 A. That's right.

8 Q. And she complained about them -- is that right? -- in

9 the context of criminal proceedings?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. Again, I have to ask -- maybe you can't help us any

12 further -- but did she give you any specific examples

13 that you can now recall?

14 A. No. Once again, you know, this was really a venting,

15 open meeting, "Hey, you are a lawyer from Toronto, this

16 is what happens here. What is your experience like?"

17 That kind of thing.

18 Q. In addition to what she said to you about raising these

19 matters in criminal proceedings, did she give you any

20 other idea of what she had done to address the comments

21 made to her by police officers?

22 A. Not that I can recall today, I am sorry. I mean, other

23 than I know she had met with Mr Flanagan, but the

24 specifics of that meeting, my recollection of what she

25 said it was is pretty vague. So I would have assumed





1 that these types of issues were raised with him and

2 also, again, as I have said, she would raise this in the

3 courtroom but to no avail, but it was very general.

4 Q. Does the same apply -- in other words, that the

5 conversation was general -- in relation to the threats

6 she told you she was receiving on the telephone?

7 A. Yes, she said that she would get phone calls, hang up

8 and -- calls where people saying threatening things and

9 that she believed she had recognised voices of members

10 of the RUC.

11 Q. And are those the telephone calls you refer to in

12 paragraph 6 of your statement, page RNI-824-068

13 (displayed)?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Again, did she give you any hint of why it was that she

16 believed those calls were made by police officers?

17 A. Other than being able to identify some voices, no.

18 Q. But she told you she recognised some voices, did she?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did she give you any other details about the basis on

21 which she had believed that such calls had been made by

22 police officers?

23 A. No, I am not sure that she had any other information. I

24 think I would recall if she had specific evidence. I

25 think that would have been something that even I may not





1 have forgotten ten years later.

2 Q. But when you made your statement, if you look again at

3 paragraph 6, you give specific and indeed a vivid list

4 of abusive comments made to her. So those comments are

5 things that stick in your mind, are they?

6 A. Oh, yes, they were pretty bad comments. I remember

7 that -- and you know, from my culture, words like using

8 "Fenian" and "IRA sympathiser", "half face Nelson",

9 those aren't words that are common in Canada to hear.

10 So they are more memorable for me because of the

11 cultural identifications.

12 Q. And did all these details she provided to you make you

13 concerned about her safety?

14 A. Yes. Absolutely. I felt very concerned for her.

15 I didn't know her very well. This was my first time

16 meeting her and there was a bond that was going on with

17 everybody that you met in the circumstances under which

18 I was there, which were very tense. And perhaps

19 a greater bond with her, because they was a female

20 lawyer who practised criminal law, and it was -- it was

21 more of an emotional bond that people created and

22 developed during that period of time.

23 But I didn't know her; I recognise that very well.

24 She was not my best friend. We were becoming friends

25 that evening, I could tell that. But sometimes you





1 know, you meet people in these circumstances, you never

2 end up hearing from them again. It sort of fades away.

3 I sensed that wouldn't happen with her, and we talked

4 about how she was going to deal with the threats and

5 what she was going to do, and I remember even saying to

6 her, "Are you sure you want to do this work? Wouldn't

7 it just be easier to go back to the family law

8 practice?"

9 Q. What was her answer to that?

10 A. She didn't want to do that. She was concerned about the

11 threats, very concerned, and -- but also concerned about

12 being a role model.

13 You know, I said, "Are you sure this is the best way

14 to be a role model for your children?" And I did not

15 have children. I don't think I could start judging her

16 in that respect, and I didn't live in her world where

17 I grew up with barbed wire and military personnel

18 storming my school and the streets. So I didn't grow up

19 with an attitude of accepting fear like many people do

20 who live in countries like that.

21 There is no barbed wire at the public schools in

22 Toronto. So I grew up playing Red Rover on the street

23 without even being fearful of being hit by a car let

24 alone paramilitaries on the street. I see people

25 differently from the people in Northern Ireland. I am





1 more fearful of the situation. We lock our front doors

2 because we are worried about burglars; the people I met

3 there didn't lock their front doors because they didn't

4 worry about burglars, they worried about fire bombs

5 coming through the living room window. I didn't grow up

6 that way.

7 So Rosemary's concerns were more of wanting to be

8 a strong role model for her children and saying don't

9 give in, stand up for the principle. Which I respected

10 also. I just don't know if I would have done it.

11 Q. But in relation to this pattern of threatening behaviour

12 that she described to you in your meeting, did she tell

13 you whether she had reported these events to the

14 authorities?

15 A. I recall her telling me that she had talked to

16 Mr Flanagan about all the threats she was receiving.

17 Q. And this is when you describe in your statement later,

18 don't you, hearing about a direct meeting between her

19 and the Chief Constable?

20 A. That's right.

21 Q. We will come back to that in a moment, if we may. The

22 other thing you say in your statement about the

23 telephone calls is that she believed that some of them

24 were coming from Loyalist paramilitaries.

25 Can I ask you the same question I asked you about





1 the police: did she explain how she knew the identities

2 of those people who were ringing her?

3 A. I can't recall if she said that she recognised their

4 voices and could identify them, as I do recall her

5 saying with the police. It may very well have been that

6 she did say something like that and it was just part of

7 my memory that it was both and that she recognised both.

8 I do remember her saying she believed there were

9 Loyalist paramilitaries who were making those calls, but

10 not how she recognised that.

11 Q. Right. In relation to your response to all this

12 information, you said that you suggested to her, or

13 raised the possibility, that she might stop doing work

14 of this kind. Did you raise any other suggestions, give

15 her any other advice as to what she might do?

16 A. Well, only in the sense that I said that I could raise

17 these issues in the meeting that we were going to have

18 with Mr Flanagan and see if I could help to facilitate

19 something more along those lines. And I do recall, when

20 talking about her experience with Mr Flanagan, the

21 frustration that she felt and that he, in fairness, felt

22 was not knowing how to do it. She didn't want -- she

23 did not want cameras and bugs all over her house and

24 office. She didn't want to be under surveillance. He

25 didn't seem to have any other ideas, so they were





1 frustrated.

2 She didn't know how he could possibly help her in

3 the culture in which she and his staff existed. It

4 would be very different back home. You would, again,

5 have a few bad police officers in something like -- not

6 even like this, but any kind of situation where perhaps

7 the police were harassing a lawyer for whatever reason

8 back home, it would be very easy for the chief of

9 a large police office to find a few bad apples and deal

10 with it internally. It wouldn't be a cultural issue.

11 Q. Can I just ask you about the comments you make in

12 paragraph 9. Again, you have mentioned the judiciary on

13 a number of occasions already, but here you deal with it

14 specifically in your statement.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you give an example of her clients being pushed down

17 the stairs or physically abused by the police at the

18 courthouse. I am sorry to ask you the same question all

19 the time.

20 A. That's fine.

21 Q. But can you assist us with this: did she give you

22 specific examples of this sort of behaviour?

23 A. Not that I recall, and I am sorry -- when I gave my

24 statement I tried to be as clear as I could with the

25 solicitors that my memory was extraordinarily vague





1 about all of it and I would give whatever I could, but

2 it certainly hasn't gotten better since I gave the

3 statement either.

4 Q. You gave a speech at a vigil after Rosemary Nelson's

5 murder, didn't you, on 15th April 1999?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You tell us about it in your statement. Can you look,

8 please, at RNI-407-004, which is the text of that speech

9 (displayed).

10 A. I believe it is 470.

11 Q. Sorry, you are quite right, RNI-470-004 (displayed),

12 thank you.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the second paragraph, if we could enlarge that,

15 please. In relation to the incidents we are just

16 talking about, do you see in the fifth line, you say:

17 "She spoke of clients who were thrown downstairs by

18 court house guards. She spoke of judges who told her to

19 shut up when she complained of this brutality."

20 This was of course within a year of your meeting

21 with her in July 1998?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. It is right, isn't it, that in your speech, again, you

24 spoke about the issues in a very general way?

25 A. That's correct, that's fair.





1 Q. Does it suggest that the way she spoke about it to you

2 was also in a very general way in July 1998?

3 A. Oh, I think it is fair to say that. Now, she may have

4 given me even more information in July than I could even

5 recall in April of 1999, and that is my weakness, but it

6 was certainly a very general conversation and if she

7 gave me more detail, it wouldn't have been very much

8 more.

9 Q. Thank you. Can I just ask you this question: did you

10 have any discussion with her about complaints that she

11 had made concerning police behaviour?

12 A. We had a discussion, yes, but very general. I don't

13 know what you are asking.

14 Q. You mentioned her raising it in the context of criminal

15 proceedings. Did you discuss with her making complaints

16 about RUC, police behaviour under the RUC disciplinary

17 complaints system?

18 A. Oh, very generally, because we had the discussion about

19 what she would do with the complaints, and what came up

20 was that she didn't feel that Flanagan would assist her.

21 And although she did not say that Flanagan said this

22 directly to her, she was under the impression that he

23 had said this -- and I know it was likely rumour that

24 got spread through the community so I confronted him

25 with it, that Flanagan's approach was, again, you know,





1 I am not going to help her if she continues to represent

2 these people. This was always what she was met with.

3 And the extent of the information I received was

4 always coming from those conversations with Rosemary. I

5 don't believe she was willing to file a formal complaint

6 with respect to the police commissioner disciplinary

7 process that you allude to. I don't believe that she

8 was prepared to put herself under surveillance, and I

9 think that she felt that it would go nowhere; she might

10 even be putting herself in a more dangerous position.

11 And it is hard to tell whether she was factually correct

12 in believing that, because I didn't know enough about

13 the process, but it is certainly what she expressed

14 to me.

15 Q. Thank you. Just before we deal with your meeting with

16 the Chief Constable, can I just look forward a little

17 bit from July 1998 with you.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. As I understand it, you did keep in touch with her after

20 that by email?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. By email; is that right?

23 A. I believe so, yes. Email and -- yes, mostly email, I

24 would say. There was an odd call.

25 Q. So an odd telephone call?





1 A. Yes, very sporadic. It wasn't like we spoke every day,

2 every week. It would be every couple of months.

3 Q. Was it during that period, after your visit to

4 Northern Ireland, that you had a conversation about the

5 IRA with her?

6 A. I am not sure what you are asking.

7 Q. If you look at paragraph 7 of your witness statement --

8 A. Thank you, right.

9 Q. -- RNI-824-069 (displayed), you refer to a conversation

10 between the two of you?

11 A. I believe -- I see, sorry. I believe that was ongoing

12 at the community centre that night.

13 Q. So this also took place, did it, as you were sitting

14 round the table?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What prompted this part of the conversation?

17 A. It was carry through of the complaints of defending

18 "those people", what was meant by that.

19 As I recall it, Rosemary said that she had defended

20 people who were charged with IRA terrorist offences,

21 although none of them had ever been convicted. And we

22 talked about my work, the examples of representing the

23 less sympathetic factions of our society -- which, back

24 in Toronto, would be biker gangs -- and that I had never

25 been considered to be associated or a member of a biker





1 gang simply because I represented them. In her case, it

2 was being suggested that she was an IRA supporter

3 because she represented some people charged with IRA

4 offences.

5 Q. Thank you. So far as your comments in your statement

6 about security and her safety are concerned, am I right,

7 then, to take it that you also had the discussion you

8 have mentioned about that at the same time sitting round

9 the table in the Drumcree Community Centre?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Do you think she believed there was a genuine threat to

12 her life at that point in July 1998?

13 A. I do. I have trouble, and I have always had trouble,

14 understanding her decision to continue on, because --

15 maybe she is brave, maybe I am a coward, maybe she is

16 the smart one and I am the foolish one, I don't know --

17 or it is the opposite -- I don't think, if I had

18 children and a husband I loved who loved me, that I

19 would be willing to put the principles ahead of those

20 people and do what she did.

21 There are people in the world who do that and I am

22 never sure if I respect them or think they are fools,

23 but know I wasn't married them and I did not have

24 children. I am happily married with a child on the way

25 and I don't think right now there is anything that would





1 come ahead of my family; not my work. Maybe I am wrong

2 to feel that way as a professional, but I didn't grow up

3 in her world either and I recognise that. I get the

4 privilege of being a bit of a coward in Toronto. We are

5 internationally known as being fearful of a snow storm.

6 Q. But as I understand it, then, after this conversation

7 in July 1998, during the subsequent contact which you

8 have described, you did not return to the topic of

9 threats in your contact with her; is that right?

10 A. We didn't speak directly in phone calls or in emails of

11 anything of that nature because there is always

12 a concern of the written word being -- falling into the

13 wrong hands or of telephone lines being bugged.

14 I always assumed Rosemary's lines were being bugged

15 and generally I assume my own office lines are being

16 bugged sometimes.

17 Q. Was that just a general working assumption of yours

18 about lawyers' telephones?

19 A. With her, it was an assumption I made with her, because

20 of the situation that her lines were likely to be bugged

21 and I should always give that thought. Much as I do

22 with my clients who are calling me from a gaol or from

23 their own lines, when I know the kind of work they do,

24 I always assume my clients' lines are being bugged and

25 I don't speak anything directly to them of their case





1 that is privileged.

2 Q. Did she suggest to you that she believed her telephone

3 was being bugged?

4 A. I can't remember. It seems to me it would have been the

5 kind of thing we would have talked about that night at

6 Drumcree, that there was a likely presumption or one

7 should act if that was a likely possibility. I don't

8 recall her ever giving me information to say, "I know

9 for sure my lines are being bugged, you know, what do

10 you think I should do." It wasn't anything like that.

11 Q. You see in paragraph 16 of your statement at RNI-824-072

12 (displayed), you said that you used a code between the

13 two of you in your contact and that you were conscious

14 of discussing matters openly, presumably with these sort

15 of considerations in mind; is that right?

16 A. That's right. It was my assumption.

17 Q. And you then go on to say that you:

18 "... never had a conversation where Rosemary would

19 say to me she had received another threat."

20 And then these words:

21 "... but [you] certainly understood that the threats

22 had not stopped."

23 So can I ask you: from what did you have that

24 understanding?

25 A. Only on the basis that she knew I was concerned and that





1 she had raised them with me at one point in time, and I

2 think that it would have been fair for me to assume that

3 if it had stopped, she would have said to me, "Things

4 are better now" or something of that nature. "I am

5 working for freely now", something like that to ease my

6 own concerns for her and to let me know that the

7 situation had indeed improved.

8 Q. So she would have made, as it were, a more oblique

9 reference which would have given you the information?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. But she never did so?

12 A. No.

13 Q. And she remained, as you put it, very nervous?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Going back to the meeting with the Chief Constable,

16 which you have mentioned on a couple of occasions now,

17 you deal with that in paragraph 11 of your statement.

18 Again, as I understand it, she told you in your

19 meeting in July 1998 that she had had this meeting with

20 the Chief Constable; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Did she tell you when that meeting had taken place?

23 A. If she did, I couldn't remember that. Certainly prior

24 to our visit in July that year, but I don't know how

25 long before that. I can't remember if she said it.





1 Q. Are you able at least to help us with, from the way she

2 talked about it, whether the meeting had taken place

3 shortly before your conversation in July or a long time

4 before? Are you able to assist with that sort of

5 guesstimate?

6 A. Not accurately. The impression I had was that this was

7 all recent, but in terms of what recent means, you know,

8 I don't think it was weeks, it wasn't six months.

9 Somewhere within, I suppose, the year much 1997 might be

10 accurate, but I am making an assumption, to be honest.

11 Q. Can I ask you this: are you absolutely confident in your

12 recollection that what she was talking about was

13 a meeting where she had been in a room, as it were, with

14 the Chief Constable?

15 A. My best recollection is that she described a meeting

16 with him, yes. I recall feeling -- or having the

17 impression that her meeting with him was an unusual one,

18 and so it was -- the impression I have now or at the

19 time that I gave this statement is certainly that it

20 wasn't a meeting she had about any case she had, that

21 this was a specific meeting to raise the concerns about

22 the issues of her own treatment.

23 Q. As you point out in your own statement, it is a very

24 unusual thing for a lawyer to meet face-to-face with the

25 Chief Constable of the police force?





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Is it something you have ever done in the course of your

3 work?

4 A. Not with respect to my defence practice; with respect to

5 issues of the justice policy work that I have done.

6 Q. Now --

7 A. I did have a case where we were doing a surrender of

8 very, very significant weapons and arms with an arms

9 dealer and I had direct dealings with the chief of

10 police on that case, but that was very unusual.

11 Q. Yes. In addition to the speech you gave after

12 Rosemary Nelson's murder, you sent a reasonably

13 substantial email, I think the next day, on 16th March,

14 didn't you, to the -- was it the Criminal Law

15 Association? Do you remember that?

16 A. Yes, that was before -- that's right. I was asking for

17 their help in dealing with this situation.

18 Q. Yes, it is at RNI-470-011. Do you have that there?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can we have it on the screen, please (displayed). Thank

21 you. Can you look at the fourth paragraph?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. There, you describe your meeting with her and the death

24 threat that we have already touched on, and you say she

25 knew we had a meeting scheduled with the chief of the





1 RUC and, again, we will deal with that in a minute, your

2 own meeting with him. And then you say this:

3 "Flanagan was alleged to have said that he would not

4 protect Rosemary if she continued to defend those

5 people."

6 That rather suggests, doesn't it, that whoever he

7 made that comment to, it wasn't to Rosemary Nelson

8 herself?

9 A. That's right, and Rosemary told me he never said that to

10 her. It is what she had heard he had said.

11 Q. Yes. To somebody else?

12 A. That's right. And as I said earlier, it was beginning

13 to sound like the rumour that had been developed through

14 the community, and I had promised that I would confront

15 him with that at the meeting.

16 Q. And when you did confront him with it, he denied saying

17 it, didn't he?

18 A. That's right, he did.

19 Q. Did you suggest to him that he had had a meeting

20 face-to-face with Rosemary Nelson?

21 A. I am pretty sure I would have. I would have asked him

22 about the meeting with her and how he was going to

23 handle it, and about the note itself.

24 Q. But given that this was much more recently, as I say,

25 under a year after your conversation with her, does it





1 raise any doubt in your mind as to whether your

2 recollection now is sound that there was a meeting

3 face-to-face between Rosemary Nelson on the one hand and

4 Ronnie Flanagan on the other?

5 A. The email that I sent to the Criminal Lawyers

6 Association doesn't assist me one way or another with

7 whether I recall whether Rosemary had a meeting with

8 Flanagan. My recollection is that she told me she did

9 have a meeting with him.

10 Q. So can I take it --

11 A. I haven't reported anything in -- about that to the

12 Criminal Lawyers Association, if you are asking me

13 whether I would have if I had that memory?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Not necessarily. This was not a detailed, full

16 reporting of all the events that I would perhaps have

17 given in this venue if it had happened that year. No,

18 it doesn't help.

19 Q. So what you were doing in this sentence beginning

20 "Flanagan had alleged ..." is reporting something that

21 you believed he had said to somebody else?

22 A. That is why it says it is alleged, yes.

23 Q. Yes. In your conversation with her in July, you

24 explained, I assume, that you were scheduled to have

25 a meeting with the Chief Constable later in your visit;





1 is that right?

2 A. That's right, yes.

3 Q. And did you discuss with her what she wanted you to say

4 to the Chief Constable on her behalf?

5 A. Just very generally that the points that she wanted me

6 to raise was confronting him about the allegation that

7 he said he wouldn't help her, talking to him about

8 investigating the threats and the general treatment by

9 the RUC towards her and perhaps any other barristers and

10 solicitors who felt unfair treatment, and that would

11 have been my interest in the meeting.

12 The Information on Ireland campaign had scheduled

13 the meeting and they had an agenda. This wasn't

14 initially on the agenda. It was something that came up.

15 So, you know, everybody had a bit that they wanted to

16 deal with at each meeting we had, and it wasn't going to

17 be a meeting with Mr Flanagan all about Rosemary Nelson,

18 that's for sure.

19 Q. No. Can I just ask you to look at just one more earlier

20 document, and this is RNI-470-019 (displayed).

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. This is the letter you wrote in 2002 to the Police

23 Ombudsman, and the specific bit I would like you to look

24 at, please, is at RNI-470-020 (displayed), and it is the

25 fourth full paragraph. Can we enlarge that, please:





1 "Rosemary had understood ..."

2 A. Okay.

3 Q. Again, I am afraid I am coming back to this question of

4 whether or not your recollection is right that there was

5 a meeting face-to-face with the Chief Constable. Do you

6 see the way you put it there:

7 "Rosemary had understood the Chief Constable,

8 Ronnie Flanagan, to have said in response to the death

9 threats that he would not protect Rosemary ..."

10 Then the same phrase:

11 "... if she continued to defend those people."

12 Again, can I suggest that that suggests this is not

13 a report of anything said directly to Rosemary Nelson?

14 A. She was very clear -- I think I have said that before --

15 that the comments attributed to Mr Flanagan were never

16 said to her directly by him. She had heard this from

17 other sources that that is what he would say.

18 I think, if I am not mistaken -- and it is highly

19 improper for the witness to try to guess where the

20 examiner is going, but they do -- if you are suggesting

21 or if what you are asking me about is does it mean that

22 it is unlikely that she had a meeting with Mr Flanagan

23 because he didn't say this directly to her and he would

24 have in that meeting, no, I would disagree. I think the

25 idea was she had the meeting with him. He never said





1 this to her in the meeting. What they talked about was

2 surveillance and things that he would investigate, so to

3 speak, and that subsequently she had heard through the

4 rumour mill that this was his view, that he would not

5 help her if she continued to defend "these people", so

6 that I see the two as separate issues.

7 Q. Can we look at your statement and the last sentence of

8 paragraph 11. It is at RNI-824-070 (displayed).

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. There, you say:

11 "Rosemary told me that the Chief Constable said to

12 her that if she continued to defend these people, there

13 was nothing he could do to protect her."

14 So in your statement, it is clear, isn't it, that

15 you are putting that as something expressed in

16 a face-to-face meeting between her and Mr Flanagan?

17 A. You are quite right, I do, and I think that's wrong.

18 Q. That is what I am trying to establish from you, you see,

19 one way or the other?

20 A. I am so sorry. Yes, I don't know how I missed that. It

21 has always been clear to me that it was an allegation

22 through the rumour mill. I have missed that and I am

23 quite apologetic. I should have seen that.

24 Q. Just to be clear then, what you are saying now is that

25 that comment was not one, as you understood it, made in





1 the face-to-face meeting, but in some other way which

2 presumably had got passed back to Rosemary Nelson?

3 A. Yes, and when you say I am saying it now, I beg to

4 differ. I have always said that. This sentence is

5 certainly in an affidavit that I actually swore and I

6 am -- throughout the affidavit I have said something

7 different as well. So this is clearly an error that

8 somehow I missed. I am sorry, and I hope that that

9 hasn't caused a great deal of grief for people.

10 If that had been brought to my attention right away,

11 I would have fixed that.

12 Q. Can I --

13 A. Sorry, I just want to clear, it was in other places. I

14 have been very clear that it was not something that she

15 had said he had said directly to her, and this -- I am

16 not sure how I missed that.

17 Q. Now --

18 A. She did say to me -- and maybe it is the way it is

19 worded. She did say to me that he did not take a copy

20 of the note. That, she said to me.

21 Q. Thank you. Can we take it also that what you say in

22 paragraph 13, which is the bottom of the same page,

23 about this meeting is again based on what she told you

24 in your conversation in July?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. Can you explain to us the comment you make in the second

2 sentence:

3 "To do so ..."

4 That is to name the officers concerned in making

5 threats or comments:

6 "To do so would clearly have been a death wish."

7 A. Yes. Again, I think I alluded to this earlier. Going

8 so far as to actually naming people in the culture in

9 which she was working and living would have been to make

10 matters worse. It is one thing if somebody makes

11 a complaint of a general nature, but when you start

12 specifically naming people, you could be causing them,

13 those specific people, to need to deal with you more

14 imminently.

15 Q. So the suggestion was, was it -- and as I understand it,

16 made to you by Rosemary Nelson -- that when she named

17 any officers, she would be increasing the danger to

18 herself?

19 A. Yes, she felt that way and that is why she didn't want

20 to do so.

21 Q. And that, therefore, reading on in this paragraph, she

22 would only name them if she received suitable protection

23 to ensure her safety?

24 A. Right. And the real issue, I think, between her and

25 Mr Flanagan was what kind of protection. He seemed not





1 to really have any idea of what he could do, other than

2 the type of surveillance that she wouldn't have any part

3 of.

4 Q. What sort of surveillance do you mean by that?

5 A. Oh, like wire taps and cameras.

6 Q. You don't think she would have been content with that

7 sort of surveillance?

8 A. That is certainly something I would have understood.

9 You can't practise like that. You can't live like that.

10 Q. Do you think she would have been prepared to accept any

11 offer of protection from the police?

12 A. The question is what. I don't recall a lot of detail

13 about other avenues, because I wasn't -- am not

14 a specialist in protection. But I suppose the next

15 thing one normally thinks of and we very well would have

16 talked about is a guard, a bodyguard or physical

17 surveillance of some nature. And I know in my own

18 experience the best that the Toronto police would offer

19 you is somebody driving around your house every

20 ten minutes. So if the shot came at minute seven you

21 were kind of out of luck.

22 She certainly didn't want police officers planted in

23 her office at all times, or in her home. So the

24 question really is what can you do, other than a real

25 good independent investigation, to find out what is





1 going on and deal with those people. I think that is

2 what she mostly wanted.

3 Q. And she discussed that with you, did she, in July 1998?

4 A. Yes, that it was an -- it was investigative. That

5 was -- that would assist if there was some effort made

6 to find out who it was and what was going on and why,

7 and to put an end to it. And I know that my intent in

8 speaking with Mr Flanagan was to suggest that some

9 independence needed to be brought into the venue.

10 Q. When you met Mr Flanagan later in your trip were able to

11 suggest to him the sort of protection that you felt was

12 required in this case?

13 A. I talked about investigation mostly, because he, you

14 know, seemed frustrated about the surveillance issue.

15 It was all he had to offer, and I explained that it

16 would be rather impossible to live, and particularly to

17 work as a barrister, with the police presence and

18 surveillance and wire taps in your office and your

19 phones. So that was unacceptable and that something

20 else had to be devised, and perhaps he needed to go

21 outside of his venue to get some assistance here.

22 Q. And on this same topic, so far as Rosemary Nelson was

23 concerned, you say in paragraph 18:

24 "She didn't want to live in a bubble ..."

25 This is RNI-824-073 (displayed) at the top:





1 "... or to leave Northern Ireland. She just wanted

2 enough protection to allow her to carry on with her

3 work."

4 A. That's right.

5 Q. That's what you are describing for us, is it, that sort

6 of protection that you have just mentioned?

7 A. Yes. Rosemary wasn't an expert either on protection and

8 security, so there was a real issue as to what is there

9 to do, what can one do in this situation.

10 Q. Did you discuss with her raising her concerns, her fears

11 with organisations, authorities other than the police?

12 A. That was after the fact. That was the kind of thing

13 that we would talk about in the emails, that she was

14 going to Washington, for example, and they were somewhat

15 elusive, understandably.

16 Q. It looks as though you had a discussion in which you

17 both agreed that the Law Society in Northern Ireland

18 would be of no help to her. Is that right? Isn't that

19 what you suggest in paragraph 13?

20 A. Yes, only because of what its role is. The function of

21 the Law Society is to protect the public by ensuring

22 that lawyers have a certain standard, and if they go

23 bad, to discipline them. So their role would not have

24 been necessarily for investigating a complaint against

25 the police by a lawyer. So to that extent, yes.





1 Q. As I understand it, what you are suggesting at the very

2 end of this same paragraph, 13, is that she decided to

3 go to Washington to address the congressional

4 subcommittee because there was no local authority, local

5 way of getting the protection that she wanted; is that

6 right?

7 A. Yes, she wanted to bring international attention to it

8 and I think that is why she was raising it with me. She

9 maybe thought that another international lawyer would

10 have the ability to raise some attention elsewhere about

11 the plight of her and others, possibly.

12 I can't remember how the Washington opportunity came

13 up for her. I am not sure if she and I ever had any

14 discussion of how it all transpired, but I knew that --

15 she had decided to go there to highlight it.

16 Q. Sir, we are way beyond our shorthand writer's time.

17 There is about 20 minutes to go, I am afraid.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: If we had a break of quarter of an hour

19 minutes/20 minutes, would you be prepared to go on for

20 another quarter of an hour/20 minutes after that?

21 A. We just have an issue with our hotel checkout, but I can

22 make those arrangements from here, I suppose.

23 MR PHILLIPS: Thank you very much.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: We will have a break of 20 minutes to give

25 the stenographer a break.





1 A. Thank you.

2 (4.44 pm)

3 (Short break)

4 (5.10 pm)

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Phillips.

6 MR PHILLIPS: Can we talk, please, about the meeting you had

7 with Mr Flanagan during your visit.

8 In the report, a page we looked at earlier, the

9 report made after your visit, it said that this meeting

10 took place on 9th July. That is RNI-830-144

11 (displayed). Do you have that page with you?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. At the bottom of the page, do you see, "Thursday,

14 9th July, Belfast":

15 "A group of six delegates began the day by meeting

16 Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan"?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. We can see from that same paragraph and the reference to

19 the warm embrace that apart from you, Mr Almand was

20 there. Can you remember who else from the delegation

21 was present at the meeting?

22 A. No, I am sorry, I don't.

23 Q. Thank you. The report then gives an account of what was

24 discussed, and you see in the third line it focused on

25 delegates' questions regarding RUC policing of Loyalist





1 demonstrations.

2 Then the account continues, if we turn over the

3 page to RNI-830-145 (displayed), and again, do you see

4 the first couple of paragraphs are about marching. If

5 we go back to the main page, please, RNI-830-145, do you

6 see the third full paragraph down, beginning with the

7 words "delegate". Do you have the page?

8 A. I have a different version in here.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. I can find it by the paragraph words. So that is fine,

11 I am with you.

12 Q. The delegates -- then your name -- raised the issue?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. It looks from that report as though you raised the issue

15 in a general way; is that right?

16 A. Yes. Well, sorry, I spoke about Rosemary Nelson

17 specifically and her concern.

18 Q. But did you also raise it, as it suggests here, in a

19 general way?

20 A. Yes, about solicitors in general, you mean?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. And also, I spoke about Rosemary, yes.

23 Q. And as I understand it, his response, according to your

24 statement, was to respond to your specific questions

25 about Rosemary Nelson by first of all denying the





1 comments attributed to him, i.e. denying that he had ever

2 said he wouldn't investigate the complaint and if she

3 continued to defend these people, there was nothing he

4 could do to protect her?

5 A. That's right.

6 Q. And that is what he said in the meeting, is it?

7 A. That is the gist of it, I would say. I can't attribute

8 those exact words to him, obviously.

9 Q. Yes. But it looks as though the discussion then

10 continued with him talking about investigating the

11 matters that you were raising. Is that the way it went?

12 A. Yes, that was my concern, that I wanted to emphasise the

13 need for investigating.

14 Q. And did he indicate what he would do about that?

15 A. No, he said he would and he said he would look into it.

16 And I think I explained in my affidavit -- I know I read

17 it somewhere recently -- that I understood that it being

18 raised at this meeting without it being on an agenda

19 that he was aware of, it would only be fair for him to

20 take some time after the fact to consider the options

21 for doing so.

22 I didn't think it was appropriate or fair for me to

23 start cross-examining him on the spot about what plans

24 he had to investigate this at the moment.

25 Q. No. But he certainly didn't brush off your suggestion?





1 A. No.

2 Q. No, he indicated that something would be done, but you

3 weren't entirely sure during the meeting what it

4 would be?

5 A. No, I know that I felt unsure about his sincerity, but I

6 did not have any real evidence to back up what was

7 likely a cynical assumption on my part. And I -- sorry,

8 I was going to say at best I had hoped to go out of

9 there feeling positive that he would do something.

10 Q. Did you ever follow up on what he had said in the

11 meeting?

12 A. As I recall, shortly thereafter there was a media report

13 that was sent to me -- yes -- I don't know if you have

14 a copy of the actual document that I wrote attached to

15 the Information on Ireland Campaign report. It was my

16 own --

17 Q. Your --

18 A. -- that I submitted.

19 Q. Your appendix? Yes, we do.

20 A. That's right, yes.

21 Q. It is RNI-830-166 (displayed).

22 A. Yes. In that one, I think I set out on the last page

23 that shortly after our return to Canada, I was provided

24 with an article that appeared in the Irish Times

25 indicating that Mr Flanagan had appointed a special





1 investigator from England to probe the concerns of the

2 defence bar.

3 As far as --

4 Q. Can I just interrupt to help everybody here. This is at

5 RNI-830-168 (displayed).

6 A. Sorry.

7 Q. Sorry. And you start referring to Rosemary Nelson,

8 don't you, in the fourth like:

9 "One lawyer, Rosemary Nelson ..."

10 Do you have that passage? Do you see a paragraph

11 beginning:

12 "The CAJ is currently involved ..."

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The fourth line:

15 "One lawyer ..."

16 Do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I think you are now drawing our attention to a line,

19 about four lines down:

20 "Shortly after I returned to Canada, an article

21 appeared in the Irish Times indicating Mr Flanagan had

22 appointed a special investigator from England to probe

23 the concerns of the defence bar"?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. And that was your understanding after the meeting?





1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Did you take --

3 A. I certainly didn't -- I am sorry.

4 Q. Do go ahead.

5 A. I was going to say it certainly didn't seem my place to

6 beyond that and start phoning and writing to people to

7 say what are you doing. I felt they were doing

8 something. I wasn't asked to do anything further.

9 Q. Right. So as far as you were concerned, you took the

10 announcement in the paper to be the further

11 investigation that you discussed with him in your

12 meeting in July 1998?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. So far as further events are concerned, you

15 came back to Ireland, I think, after Rosemary Nelson was

16 murdered in the summer of 1999?

17 A. That's right.

18 Q. And at that point, as I understand it, you met with the

19 Secretary of State -- this is paragraph 22 of your

20 statement at RNI-824-074 (displayed) --

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. May I ask you what was the purpose of that meeting?

23 A. Well, the Information on Ireland Campaign had scheduled

24 the meeting with her as well as other people, as they

25 always did, and my interest was to speak about





1 Rosemary's situation and to present a number of

2 petitions that I had brought from Canada that were

3 signed by various legal organisations. So I was on the

4 agenda for a few minutes of that meeting.

5 Q. And you also tell us that in the same visit you had

6 another meeting with the Chief Constable. This is

7 paragraph 24 of your statement at RNI-824-075

8 (displayed).

9 A. That's right.

10 Q. And it sounds as though, unlike the earlier meeting,

11 this one became emotional and there was some perhaps

12 hard words on your part. Is that fair?

13 A. I think so. I think I was very deeply affected by

14 Rosemary's murder.

15 Q. And you think that --

16 A. It was a first for me.

17 Q. Yes. And you think that explained and coloured your

18 behaviour at the meeting?

19 A. Oh, it certainly would have. I think I was very angry

20 with him.

21 Q. Can I ask you: were other members of the delegation

22 present at that meeting?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And again --

25 A. I can't remember who, though.





1 Q. Right, thank you. Before that meeting with the

2 Chief Constable took place, had you heard any more of

3 the investigation that you had read about in the

4 newspaper on your return from your previous trip?

5 A. I am trying to remember the chronology of events.

6 I know that there was -- the UN representative was

7 undergoing the investigation and I believe that was

8 ongoing when she was killed. I could be mistaken about

9 the timing of that, though, but I think that was

10 happening.

11 Q. Can I ask you: was Mr McConnell of the Information on

12 Ireland Campaign, was he present at this meeting with

13 Mr Flanagan?

14 A. I would have thought so, I can't be 100 per cent

15 certain, but I know there were times where the delegates

16 from the Information on Ireland Campaign split up

17 because of scheduling; there would be two meetings

18 ongoing. So sometimes not all of us were together.

19 Q. The reason I ask you is because in his statement -- he

20 is also a witness to this inquiry -- Mr McConnell, he

21 says about this meeting that at the end of it,

22 Mr Flanagan took you to one side and asked you to help

23 with the investigation and in particular with the

24 relationship between the police and Rosemary Nelson's

25 family. Do you remember that?





1 A. I actually didn't and that affidavit was provided to me

2 just yesterday. I read it over yesterday evening and I

3 think there is a natural tendency to either confabulate

4 the memory or it does bring the memory, and I can't be

5 accurate as to which I am having, but it started to ring

6 the bell when I read it.

7 But I really -- I am having a hard time trying to

8 picture what Alan described there. So I would be

9 worried that I would be filling in gaps if you ask me

10 too much about that.

11 Q. Can I ask --

12 A. Sorry --

13 Q. I was going to say --

14 A. I do know -- you go ahead.

15 Q. No, no, no, you go ahead.

16 A. Okay. I am sorry, I am not the best witness. I am used

17 to asking the questions.

18 Q. It is the technology.

19 A. I would safely say that apart from being emotional at

20 the meeting, I certainly would have also made it clear

21 to Mr Flanagan that I would do anything I could, within

22 the limits that obviously existed for me, to assist in

23 any way and that I would put pressure on him and others

24 to ensure that there was a proper investigation, and at

25 that point I was asking for an inquiry.





1 Q. But can you at least remember whether you did in fact

2 provide any assistance with the investigation?

3 A. No, I didn't, I was never called upon.

4 Q. Thank you very much. Those are the questions I wanted

5 to ask you, but if there is any other matter that you

6 would like to mention to the Inquiry panel, this is your

7 chance.

8 A. I think there are issues that are important to me that

9 I have tried to allude to a little bit in answering your

10 questions, sir, and I don't know if the Inquiry's

11 mandate is going to consider the systemic issues that

12 may have existed that would have allowed for Rosemary to

13 even feel the way she did regardless of whether it can

14 factually be proven that the RUC and paramilitary

15 Loyalists were involved in this, but I think the

16 systemic issues that existed in her mind and those of

17 other lawyers that the international observers met over

18 the period of time that I was involved is something that

19 I would be happy to comment on, because, as I have said,

20 I think I live and work in an environment of great

21 respect and freedom for lawyers and whenever anything is

22 brought to the attention of the legal institutions or

23 the judiciary that is of an unfair nature or

24 a disrespectful nature, it is dealt with very quickly

25 and very seriously.





1 I don't know enough about the system as it existed

2 when Rosemary was alive and practising, but I know that

3 I heard enough complaints or rumoured complaints to

4 question whether the same existed. And I think that at

5 a time of rebuilding, it is an exciting time for

6 a culture to take upon itself to say we want to be the

7 best. And it would be good if the Inquiry looks into

8 the systemic issues that existed and compares them to

9 other places to ensure that a greater system of fairness

10 and respect exists to make sure that all of us work in

11 a safe environment where we can do the great work we do

12 that benefits all of society.

13 If I can be of any further assistance in dealing

14 with those issues, if you do look into that, then I

15 would be happy to.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

17 A. That's it.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn --

19 A. Thank you, Mr Commissioner.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: -- until quarter past 10 tomorrow morning.

21 MR AIKEN: May I just --

22 THE CHAIRMAN: We will just allow the witness to depart

23 before we hear the submission. Thank you very much.

24 Can we turn the system off?

25 Yes, Mr Aiken.





1 MR AIKEN: My Lord, I want to say a thank you to Mr Phillips

2 and his team, because I am afraid the NIO's legal

3 representatives suffered a technological disaster over

4 the weekend in that questions we had submitted for

5 tomorrow's witness, which is obviously very important

6 for the NIO, didn't make it although others did. And

7 I became aware of that shortly after lunch today and

8 I brought it to Mr Phillips's attention as quickly as I

9 could, and his staff are going to do what they can with

10 those questions.

11 So in those circumstances, I wanted to say thank you

12 to them for agreeing to do that in the circumstances.

13 It is one of those things, I am afraid, that technology

14 on this occasion has let us down, but obviously I can

15 speak to him and to you tomorrow, sir, if they aren't

16 able to cover all of the questions. But they have told

17 me they are going to do their best and for that I am

18 thankful.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Aiken, the Panel and I am sure Mr Phillips

20 and his hard-pressed team will be very grateful for what

21 you have said.

22 MR AIKEN: I am obliged.

23 (5.30 pm)

24 (The Inquiry adjourned until 10.15 am the following day)






2 I N D E X

MR JAMES MCINTYRE (sworn) ........................ 1
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 1
MS CINDY WASSER (affirmed) ....................... 57
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 57