Daughter of Denis Donaldson demands public inquiry into killing after Adams case
Mr Adams claimed a BBC Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, which he denies any involvement in.
On Friday, the jury found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euro (£84,000) in damages.
Mr Donaldson was shot dead in Co Donegal in 2006, months after admitting his role as a police and MI5 agent over 20 years.
His daughter, Jane Donaldson, was prevented from giving evidence to the jury during the BBC's defence of the case.
Following the verdict, she said the case proves the need for an urgent public inquiry into the killing.
In a statement on behalf of the family, Ms Donaldson said: 'By reducing events which damaged our lives to a debate about damage to his reputation, the plaintiff has trivialised our family tragedy.
'Daddy's murder and surrounding circumstances devastated our family. The plaintiff prioritised his own financial and reputational interests over any regard for retraumatising my family.
'We are still no closer to the truth. No-one spoke for my family in court. We supported neither side in this case.'
Speaking after the verdict, Mr Adams said: 'I'm very mindful of the Donaldson family in the course of this long trial, and indeed of the victims' families who have had to watch all of this.
'I want to say that the (Irish) Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan should meet the family of Denis Donaldson as quickly as possible, and that there's an onus on both governments and everyone else, and I include myself in this, to try and deal with these legacy issues as best that we can.'
However, Ms Donaldson criticised his legal team's approach to her evidence.
'Although the plaintiff claimed sympathy for my family, his legal team objected to me giving evidence to challenge the account of his witnesses.
'The jury heard sensitive, privileged family information tossed around without our consent, but did not hear my testimony.
'Limitless legal resources and vast expense were invested in this case while there is supposedly a live Garda investigation into my daddy's murder.
'The public interest can only now be fully served by some form of public inquiry, with a cross-border dimension which is ECHR Article 2-compliant, empowered to investigate the whole truth about the conspiracy to expose and murder my daddy.'
Ciaran Shiels, a solicitor who represented the family in the past, was called as a witness in the case.
Mr Shiels, a solicitor and partner at Madden and Finucane Solicitors, told the court the BBC was not only 'barking up the wrong tree' but was in the 'wrong orchard' over the claims against Mr Adams.
Mr Shiels said he represented Mr Donaldson and his family from a period before his death until a period after the broadcast.
He said he came to act as a spokesperson for the family after Mr Donaldson's death but said he no longer does so.
Mr Shiels told the court the family do not accept or believe in any way that Mr Adams had anything to do with it.
However, Ms Donaldson issued a statement after his appearance in court to say the family had not been consulted about him giving evidence in the case.
She said she wanted to make clear Mr Shiels no longer acts for the family.
In a voir dire hearing without the presence of the jury, Ms Donaldson said she had followed the case 'very closely and very painfully' over a number of weeks and felt compelled to contact the BBC because she felt there were inaccuracies presented as evidence in the case.
She said the family did not accept the claim of responsibility for the killing by the dissident republican group the Real IRA.
Ms Donaldson said her father had been 'thrown to the wolves' and there was a conspiracy to deliberately expose him as an agent.
She said it was the family's position that it had an 'open mind' in relation to the murder and it was focused on 'pursuing the truth'.
Ms Donaldson also said she had no idea that Mr Shiels was going to give evidence and she had not authorised it.
She said Madden and Finucane represented her family until February of this year but Mr Shiels was never appointed as a family spokesman.
She said the family were not aware of the first meeting between Mr Shiels and BBC Spotlight journalist Jennifer O'Leary about the programme, but were aware of subsequent meetings and other correspondence.
When questioned by Tom Hogan, SC, for Mr Adams, she also acknowledged her husband, Ciaran Kearney, was later present at a meeting involving the BBC and Mr Shiels at the firm's office.
She said she knew her husband was going to meet them and he told her about the meeting afterwards.
However, she stressed the family were not aware of the first meeting between Mr Shiels and Ms O'Leary.
Trial judge Alexander Owens intervened to say that was 'water under the bridge' for the second meeting.
Mr Hogan asked Ms Donaldson if she was aware of correspondence on behalf of the family responding to allegations about Mr Kearney.
Ms Donaldson said Mr Shiels was speaking on behalf of the family at that time in relation to the specifics of the programme.
Mr Hogan said Mr Shiels had told the court he no longer represented the family.
Ms Donaldson said the statement she had issued on Mr Shiels's relationship to the family was to contradict a newspaper report.
She also said she felt there was a narrative that the family were in support of one side over the other when they were not.
Judge Owens asked Ms Donaldson if Mr Shiels was speaking for the family on September 23, 2016 when he made representations to the media following a meeting with An Garda Siochana.
She said he was at that stage, and acknowledged he was authorised to put out statements for the family over the years.
Asked about Mr Shiels's evidence when he said the family would have told the programme they did not believe Mr Adams's authorised the killing, she said she did not recall discussing that in detail or discussing Mr Adams in particular.
She said their legal advice had been not to take part in the programme.
Judge Owens asked if Mr Shiels had been right in relation to their view at the time, adding it may not be 'either here or there'.
Ms Donaldson replied: 'I think it is neither here nor there.'
She added she cannot recall a conversation about that at the time, adding the family's position has evolved over the years.
Mr Hogan contended Ms Donaldson's comments had not borne out that Mr Shiels had provided a serious inaccuracy to the court.
He said he was in fact authorised to act as a spokesperson for the family at the time.
Paul Gallagher, SC, for the BBC, said it would be a 'fundamental unfairness' to not allow Ms Donaldson to comment on the evidence put forward by Mr Shiels.
Judge Owens said the Donaldsons were aware of Mr Shiels's actions from the second meeting onwards.
He told Ms Donaldson he appreciated all of her concerns and the points she made.
However, he said his concern was whether her evidence was relevant to the jury making decisions.
He said he had listened to counsel and her statements very carefully.
Judge Owens said: 'While you do have all of these concerns, I don't think your evidence in relation to the matter is going to assist the jury in arriving at their decision.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Wayne Rooney: ‘Racially abused player cried on my chest'
Wayne Rooney has revealed how he consoled a former player who 'cried on his chest' after receiving racist abuse. He believes believes only tougher sanctions for racism in football, like points deductions, will prevent further incidents. Speaking on his new BBC podcast, The Wayne Rooney Show, former England and Manchester United captain Rooney reflected on what changes need to occur to help tackle discrimination. Last week saw two major incidents, with Antoine Semenyo of Bournemouth allegedly racially abused by a spectator in the crowd during their 4-2 loss at Liverpool and Tottenham forward Mathys Tel receiving racism online for a missed penalty in their Super Cup defeat to Paris St Germain. Ex-DC United boss Rooney said: 'I had it in DC with one of my players who got racially abused and he was crying on my chest. I was holding him as he was crying on my chest. 'I don't think people realise – they say it as a throwaway line that they think has no meaning behind it, but it hurts people. For people to see that and understand, there has to be more done to stop it.' Points deductions and education were put forward by Rooney as key deterrents to prevent racism. He added: 'There needs to be a strong campaign for society – for children, parents and grandparents – to be educated,' Rooney added. 'You have to hit the clubs because that's the only way it will stop. If there is ignorance, the fans will still do it. 'You have to hit the clubs by taking off points or hit them in the pocket and take money away from them. Otherwise, it will keep on going. 'Hopefully the right people sit down with the right organisations to try and get something serious in place.'
New Statesman
38 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Is Theresa May your hero?
Photo byWhat is a hero? Rory Stewart, whose latest BBC miniseries The Long History of Heroism has recently concluded, is surely in a position to know – and he suggests Theresa May. Where and in whom one sees heroism is, of course, a personal question, and one which says quite a lot about you. But I confess that even as someone who admires May for the same qualities as Stewart does ('an incredible sense of dignity and a real attempt to do what she thought was the right thing'), 'hero' seems a bit of a stretch. I suspect the fact that she 'sacrificed her political career' to try and deliver a soft Brexit plays a larger role in Stewart's calculations than in mine. Stewart has his doubts too, of a strange sort: he told the Daily Mail that 'it is 'really difficult' to see her as a 'classical hero' because she failed to achieve her main aims'. But does he really believe that success is a condition of heroism? Here, in the land which valorises Dunkirk? The last stand is a classic heroic trope. But not any last stand. Crucially, context matters: the commander who dies alongside his men in a doomed but righteous struggle is a hero – the one who leads his troops needlessly to slaughter is not. The absurdity of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act allowed May to make several last stands. They were ultimately, however, of the latter sort. Many people must share the blame for the position the Conservative Party found itself in after the EU referendum. David Cameron had taken the absurd decision to hold a referendum in which the government would campaign for the status quo, then resigned; the two Brexiteers, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, had conspired in their own implosions. Had May stepped onto a field containing only the improbable figure of Andrea Leadsom, she might have cast herself as Cincinnatus. But she chose to enter the full leadership contest, in full knowledge that any leader would be defined by the task of getting Britain out of the European Union – something she had not wanted to do, and for which she had no vision. The result was the worst of both worlds: a muddled-together 'soft Brexit' which didn't fulfil the aspirations of the Leavers, compounded by a raft of needless and hugely damaging concessions on Northern Ireland, lathered with tough Home Office-flavoured rhetoric about 'citizens of nowhere' which aggravated Remainers. Stewart says that May 'fought tooth and nail' for her palliative vision for Brexit, such as it was. But she did not fight well. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Dashing the same deal to finer and finer smithereens against the House of Commons could be dressed up as determination, yes. Or it could simply reflect the terminal inability to adapt to changing circumstances which is so often the hallmark of a poor general. To say that May 'sacrificed her career' for her vision of Brexit presumes that she was capable of taking, or even envisioning, other courses of action. The evidence of her premiership, at least to those of us who didn't work with her personally, offers little reason for believing so. Perhaps the personal perspective is what really matters. Classical heroism, of the sort Stewart discusses in the early episodes of his series, seems to be mostly a trick of perspective. It lies always in the past, where the lens of myth and memory has smoothed the rough edges and turned events into stories. JS Mill warned his readers in On Liberty against society 'rejecting the stuff of which heroes are made, because it knows not how to make them'; Julius Caesar, a classical hero by any definition, mourned the enchanted age in which he presumed Alexander to have lived. Stewart posits that the age of heroism died in the trenches of the First World War, which put paid to the ideals of great warriors and martial glory, with TE Lawrence embodying the change as a man who tried to live as a classical hero but failed. Anyone familiar with the long sweep of the history of war be sceptical. The Great War was a horrifying meatgrinder of a conflict, to be sure – but was the Thirty Years War any less? For that matter, were there no heroes in the Second World War? Yet consider the timespan involved, and the role of the Great War in Stewart's thesis seems clear enough. It is far enough away that we can start to grasp its mythic outline (even more so for the age which preceded it), but well-documented enough that we can see all those details which muddy a heroic narrative. But if grand heroism is a trick of the light, actual heroism is a human constant, and it does not require any grand stage upon which to play out. Heroism is simply a test of one's ordinary character (and perhaps judgement) in extraordinary circumstances; for good reason is 'a hero to his men' another well-worn trope. Perhaps May was a hero to her men, fighting the good fight against insurmountable odds. But with the benefit of a bit of distance, it seems fairer to say that whatever courage it took to leap into the hole in British politics, spade in hand, all her efforts added up to was to dig an even deeper hole. [See also: Will we ever be free of Brexit?] Related
The Sun
44 minutes ago
- The Sun
Epping migrant protesters aren't racists – they're mums worried about their kids & angry at Labour smears
THE small boats crisis is a national security emergency. In the last 100 days we have seen a spate of alleged attacks by illegal migrants. A girl in Epping, sexually assaulted. A ten year old in Stockport, nearly kidnapped. Three stabbed in Southampton. All adding to a general sense of lawlessness in the country. 2 2 It's no wonder protests are starting up across the country. I wouldn't want my children to share a neighbourhood with small boat migrants about which we know next to nothing. I don't want anyone else's family to have this forced on them either. For saying this I, and the millions of people who agree with my statement, were labelled 'racist' on BBC Radio 4's Thought For The Day. The BBC didn't see anything wrong with this statement and allowed it to be broadcast. Well, there is nothing racist about caring about the safety of your family. Patriotic protesters When I was in the Home Office I saw up close that dangerous people were crossing the Channel. I sounded the alarm publicly that terror suspects were crossing in small boats. I am pushing for the Government to publish the migrant crime stats quarterly, but until then the indicative data suggests certain nationalities are far more disposed to commit crime than others. The overwhelming majority of those crossing in small boats are adult males with no paperwork. Protesters arrested near migrant hotel after 'asylum seeker guest' arrested on suspicion of assault How are the authorities supposed to identify them and check their criminal record? The British people are right to be worried. It's why on Sunday I visited peaceful and patriotic protesters in Epping, Essex, who are simply fed up. I spoke to teenagers, parents and grandparents — all rightly concerned about the safety of their community. These weren't racists or far-right thugs — they were mums in pink T-shirts with Union Jack bunting. One mother told me how her daughter's school had written to her suggesting children avoid certain parts of town on their walk home. Her young daughter told me that men from the hotels loiter outside certain spots 'where they look at us.' These weren't racists or far-right thugs — they were mums in pink T-shirts with Union Jack bunting Another mother told me how her daughter had bought a pair of construction worker's boots to put outside the house, to make it look as if there was a man inside. Among everyone I spoke to there was outrage at how they felt the perfectly legitimate anger over mass, uncontrolled migration had been ignored by the Government and smeared by an absurdly out-of-touch liberal elite. The Government isn't listening to the community in Epping, nor those across the country who have asylum hotels forced upon them. These hotels aren't where the cabinet or senior officials live. They are safe in their ivory towers. It doesn't affect their day-to-day lives like it does for those in the rest of the country. Sir Keir Starmer should get out of Westminster and come and speak to the people of Epping to hear their concerns and act on them. Maybe then he will wake up and do something about the spiralling small boat crossings. But until then we will keep seeing fair-minded Brits out protesting that enough is enough. Sick joke We're seven years into this and more than 170,000 have arrived illegally. Based on a Dutch study, each migrant is set to cost us roughly half a million pounds over the course of their lifetime. By the end of the decade, we'll have spent tens of billions on this. It's a disgrace. A sick joke on the British people. It simply has to end. I will be the first to admit the last government didn't do enough to fix this problem. I was the first Minister to close hotels, initiating 100 exits — but we needed to do more. I fought tooth and nail with then Home Secretary Suella Braverman to get Rishi Sunak to disapply Tony Blair's Human Rights Act and ECHR so we could deport all those coming illegally. But despite much arguing, I couldn't persuade him, so I resigned and fought on the backbenches for much stronger measures. If Starmer is to succeed he needs to close all the loopholes immigration offenders use to frustrate their removal. And he needs to reform the judiciary to remove activist judges who compromise the independence of the judiciary. Otherwise the British people will continue to suffer.
