Adams tells court he ‘liked but did not have many dealings' with British spy
Gerry Adams has said he 'liked but did not have many dealings' with a British spy, a Dublin court heard.
The former Sinn Fein president said he viewed Denis Donaldson as 'a victim of the conflict' and said that his handlers saw him as 'expendable'.
Mr Adams has begun a defamation case after claims were made in a BBC Northern Ireland Spotlight programme in 2016 about who sanctioned the killing of Mr Donaldson, who was a British spy.
Sinn Fein member Mr Donaldson, 55, was shot dead at a cottage near Glenties in Co Donegal in April 2006, months after being exposed as an informer.
Mr Adams has denied the allegation that he had any involvement in ordering the murder.
Opening the case on Tuesday, barrister for Mr Adams, Tom Hogan SC, said the reputation of Mr Adams as a 'peacemaker' suffered an 'unjustified' attack because of the broadcast of the BBC programme.
At the end of the day Mr Adams entered the witness box and described his early political awakenings in Belfast in the 1960s.
Continuing his evidence on Wednesday, Mr Adams told the court he first met Mr Donaldson in H-11 in Long Kesh prison.
He said Mr Donaldson was not an internee and was a sentenced prisoner who 'had been there a long time'.
He told the court he was not sure what Mr Donaldson did after his release, but believed he did some 'international work' before becoming an administrator for Sinn Fein's Stormont team.
Asked whether he was an employee of Sinn Fein, Mr Adams replied 'I would say so'.
'I liked the guy and I knew him and I knew his wife and his daughter, Jane, but I didn't really have many dealings with him,' Mr Adams said.
'I would have been working at another level within the party.'
He said that in 2002, a convoy of RUC Land Rovers arrived at Stormont, raided the Sinn Fein office and arrested Mr Donaldson and others.
The arrests were made in relation to a claim of a republican spy-ring at Stormont, which Mr Adams said was 'complete nonsense'.
After IRA decommissioning took place in the summer of 2005, he said Mr Donaldson and others who had been arrested had the charges against them dropped.
'But quite quickly after the charges were dropped it was revealed that he was an agent.'
Mr Adams told the court: 'Denis Donaldson got a visit from the PSNI and he was given a piece of paper that alerted him to the fact that he was going to be named as an agent.
'The only people who could have revealed that were the people who were using him, his handlers, so the special branch who he was acting as an agent for.'
Mr Adams said Mr Donaldson told Declan Kearney, of Sinn Fein's branch in Northern Ireland, who then informed Mr Adams.
Mr Adams asked Mr Kearney to get in touch with Mr Donaldson and 'ascertain the truth of this'.
He was interviewed by two senior members of the party, Mr Donaldson acknowledged that he was an informer, and he was dismissed, the court heard.
'Denis acknowledged that he had been an agent and he had been an agent for 20 years,' Mr Adams said.
He said he was not in touch with Mr Donaldson after he left the party, and said he was 'shocked' when he received a phone call from the British secretary of state in April 2006 to say that Mr Donaldson had been found dead.
By the time he got in touch with Mr Donaldson's family, it had been made public that Mr Donaldson had been killed.
'Personally I think that Denis Donaldson was a victim of the conflict,' he told the court. 'I don't see any other way of describing it.'
Mr Donaldson's family members watched proceedings via videolink.
Mr Adams also described political and civil developments in Northern Ireland during the 1970s and 1980s during proceedings on Wednesday.
'I do think the IRA was a legitimate response to what was happening at the time,' he said.
'That's not to say that everything they did was legitimate.'
His voice appeared to tremble at one point, as he spoke about the demands of the 1981 hunger strikers to wear their own clothes and receive an education.
'None of them wanted to die,' he said.
He said that afterwards, he began speaking to Fr Alec Reid about 'an alternative way forward'.
'If we want the IRA to stop we have to produce an alternative,' he said.
'Let's get an alternative, and that became my mantra for a number of years,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump travel ban will affect British tourists
Nationals from 12 countries will be barred from entering the United States under President Trump's new travel ban. In a video posted by the White House on Wednesday June 4, President Trump said the restrictions were 'a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks on American soil.' In addition to the 12 countries facing a total ban, nationals from an additional seven countries will face partial restrictions on entering the United States. The travel ban echoes a similar policy introduced in 2017, during Trump's first term, when he banned foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The only countries that feature on both 2017 and 2025 lists are Iran, Libya and Somalia. Nationals from the following countries cannot travel to the US for immigrant or non-immigrant purposes: Afghanistan Myanmar Chad Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Somalia Sudan Yemen Certain visa programs on offer to nationals from the following countries have been suspended, but an outright travel ban has not been implemented: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela Announcing the ban, President Trump said: 'The list is subject to revision based on whether material improvements are made and likewise new countries can be added as threats emerge around the world.' Athletes travelling for major sporting events (including the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics), certain dual nationals and Afghan nationals with Special Immigrant Visas will be exempt. The secretary of state also said there could be exemptions made on a 'case-by-case' basis. Despite Donald Trump citing the recent attack in Colorado by an Egyptian national when announcing his latest travel ban, Egypt is not included in the 19 countries. The broad reason for the travel ban is 'national security', but there are some specific categories. For some countries the concern is that there is no reliable process for issuing passports or vetting nationals leaving the country. This applies to Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Venezuela. For others, the concern is that there are a high number of immigrants overstaying their US visas. This applies to Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Burundi, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo and Turkmenistan. Then there are the countries that are included because of terrorist activity or 'state-sponsored terrorism'. These include Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Libya and Somalia. The travel ban will come into effect on June 9, 2025. No end date has been provided. This gives slightly more time for preparations to be made compared to 2017's executive order, when there was widespread disruption across US airports as nationals from banned countries were turned around at the border. Dual nationals are exempt from the travel ban. If you hold both British and Iranian passports and travel into the United States on a British passport, you will not be automatically denied entry. However, certain dual nationals (including British/Iranian nationals) are exempt from the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (Esta) visa-waiver scheme and will need to apply for a full visa (see below). The United States prevents British citizens from applying for an Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (Esta) visa waiver if they have visited certain countries since March 2011. These are Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Somalia (including Somaliland), Sudan, Syria and Yemen. This, however, is not linked to the Trump travel ban. The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act was signed by Barack Obama in 2015. You also cannot apply for an Esta visa waiver if you have been to Cuba since January 12, 2021, after Donald Trump designated Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. If you have travelled to these countries, it is not impossible to enter the United States, but it does mean you need to apply (and pay) for a full US visa. You will also need to apply for a full visa if you are a UK citizen with dual nationality with Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea or Sudan, regardless of whether you have been present in that country since March 2011. You can apply for an Esta (valid for up to 90 days of travel) online for the price of $21 (£15.50). To get a visa, you will need to attend an appointment at the US embassy and pay $185 (£136) during the application stage. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Illegal immigrant can stay in UK for daughter he does not speak to
An asylum judge allowed an illegal immigrant stay in Britain despite 'contradictory findings' that his relationship with his daughter was good – but had also broken down. Andrew Kung'u Gichuhi, from Kenya, won his appeal to remain in the country, with a new hearing pending, after an immigration judge said Mr Gichuhi could stay in the UK because he had a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, and it would not be right to expect her to leave Britain. But, later on in her judgment, she appeared to contradict her earlier comments, saying there had been a breakdown in the father-daughter relationship. After the Home Office argued that her findings were 'irrational', an upper tribunal judge has now ruled that Mr Gichuhi's claim should be heard again. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph in which illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have been able to remain in the UK or halt their deportations on human rights grounds. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has announced plans to kerb judges' powers to block deportations with new 'common sense' rules to clarify how they interpret the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) article eight, which provides the right to a family life. The Home Secretary's rules are also intended to strengthen the public interest test, in which courts need to be hold themselves accountable and only grant exceptions to laws with justified reasons. Mr Gichuhi was living in the UK illegally as an unmarried partner of a British national when he applied for citizenship. The Home Office rejected his application, arguing that there were 'no insurmountable obstacles to family life with his partner continuing in Kenya'. The Home Office said he did not have a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, from a previous marriage. Mr Gichuhi appealed the decision to a lower-tier tribunal. The unnamed judge found that there was a 'genuine and subsisting' parental relationship between Gichuhi and his daughter, who 'could not reasonably be expected to leave the United Kingdom'. But later in the judgment, she said the relationship was 'broken down' and that there was 'no contact' between the Mr Gichuhi and his daughter. In the appeal against the 'irrational' finding, the Home Office said 'a relationship could not be both genuine and subsisting and broken down'. It added the judge had also been 'speculating about the possibility of future contact'. Those representing Mr Gichuhi argued that the judge had been 'entitled' to find that the relationship was subsisting, because he sent £100 a month to his daughter's bank account. They said he sent the money on an 'entirely voluntary basis', and his daughter had not returned the money. However, while they argued that a relationship could be 'genuine and subsisting' in 'the absence of contact', they accepted that 'subsisting was the antithesis of broken down'. For this reason, Mr Gichuhi's lawyers accepted that the judge's position was 'at least contradictory' and she had not explained how 'the contradictory positions were reconciled'. Upper Tribunal Judges Adrian Seelhoff and Sean O'Brien concluded: 'Consequently, the judge's finding at that [Mr Gichuhi's] relationship with his daughter had 'broken down' is inconsistent with her finding later in that paragraph that it was 'subsisting'. 'No attempt had been made to reconcile these contradictory findings. It follows that the judge's decision involved the making of an error of law.' They ruled that the case must be reheard afresh by another judge. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump has shown up Britain's border weakness
Donald Trump's decision to ban travel for citizens of 12 countries and restrict travel from another seven will undoubtedly result in uproar and legal challenges. The idea of restricting the travel of an individual based on their country of origin, rather than their personal characteristics, is anathema to the liberal world-view, and rhetorically uncomfortable for an individualist Right. That does not mean it is without merit. A person's country of origin – the culture they were brought up in, and the economic opportunities available to them on return – can be highly informative about their propensity to overstay visas, the fiscal contribution of their household contingent on their income, and many other factors that a sensible immigration system should consider. In several cases, it is hard to take significant dispute with the logic of Trump's decision. Indeed, there is much for Britain to learn from it. It was reported earlier this year that the Home Office was examining plans to restrict visa applications from countries prone to overstaying and asylum claims. This project should be carried out and expanded. The Government has access to a wealth of information on the outcomes of migrants in Britain. If it turns out that for a given visa route, migrants from one country routinely impose higher costs to the state than migrants from another – through lower spousal workforce participation, higher birth rates, or a lower attachment to employment – then this should be reflected in the salary and income thresholds set for their visa applications. Equally, restrictions on applications from countries which sponsor terrorism or which lack a 'competent or cooperative central authority' to provide sufficiently reliable background information for citizens attempting to leave are entirely sensible. Britain should mimic this, and should consider too the merits of restricting visa access for countries which refuse to cooperate in enabling the return of their citizens. It is a grim note that part of Mr Trump's explicit motivation is avoiding repeating in America 'what happened in Europe'. If our migration system is becoming a cautionary tale in other political systems, our politicians should be willing to change it. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
