Will of man believed to be IRA agent ‘Stakeknife' will not be made public
Freddie Scappaticci, who is widely believed to be the IRA agent known as Stakeknife, outside the offices of the Andersonstown News in west Belfast in 2003 (PA)
The will of a man believed to be the IRA agent known as Stakeknife will not be made public, the High Court has ruled.
Freddie Scappaticci, who changed his name to Frank Cowley in 2020, was believed to be Britain's top agent inside the IRA.
Scappaticci, from west Belfast, had always denied the claims before his death aged 77 in 2023.
In a ruling on Monday, Sir Julian Flaux ordered that Scappaticci's will should be sealed for 70 years, meaning that its contents will not be made public.
The judge said that this is the first time, except for members of the royal family, where a court has ordered that a will not be made open to public inspection in the way the document would usually be.
He said: 'There is nothing in the will, which is in fairly standard form, which could conceivably be of interest to the public or the media.'
A hearing to decide whether the will should be sealed was held on July 21 and was closed to the public and the media.
Barristers for the Attorney General, who represents the public interest in such matters, supported the will being sealed at the hearing in London, Sir Julian said.
The court heard that a man named Michael Johnson was prepared to represent Scappaticci's interests provided that the will was sealed.
Christopher Buckley, representing Mr Johnson, said that making Scappaticci's will publicly available would be 'undesirable' and 'inappropriate', and that Mr Johnson feared his life being put at risk if the will was made open to inspection.
Sir Julian said that there was 'the need to protect (Mr Johnson) and those named in the will from the real risk of serious physical harm or even death because they might be thought to be guilty by association' with Scappaticci.
Jon Boutcher authored the interim report into the findings of Operation Kenova (Liam McBurney/PA)
He said: 'The real risk to his life and wellbeing which the deceased faced in his lifetime is amply demonstrated.'
He continued: 'Publication of the will would be both undesirable and inappropriate.'
The judge concluded that holding the hearing in public would have 'defeated the whole object' of the bid to have the will sealed.
Sir Julian said in his 18-page ruling that Scappaticci was alleged to have been a leading member of the Provisional IRA, and was part of the 'Nutting Squad' from around 1980 until the mid-1990s, which interrogated suspected informers during the Troubles.
In 2003, media reports claimed that Scappaticci had spied on the IRA for the British government, and that while working for both organisations, 'was responsible for the torture and murder of dozens of alleged IRA informers'.
Scappaticci always denied the claim but failed in a legal bid to force the British government to publicly state that he was not Stakeknife, forcing him to move to England in 2003.
Sir Julian said: 'He could not have remained in Northern Ireland, as he could have been killed by one side or the other.
'Even after he moved to England and changed his name, he continued to receive death threats.
'Such was their nature that he had to relocate at short notice several times over the years.'
Operation Kenova was then launched to probe the activities of Stakeknife within the Provisional IRA and crimes such as murder and torture, as well as the role played by the security services.
The probe, which was undertaken by Bedfordshire Police and cost tens of millions of pounds, reported its interim findings last year, after Scappaticci's death.
While it stopped short of naming him as Stakeknife, it found that more lives were probably lost than saved by the agent's actions.
The former Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police and author of the interim report, Jon Boutcher, said that the identity of Stakeknife 'will have to be confirmed at some point' but that he would 'have to leave this to my final report'.
He said: 'For now, it suffices to say that Mr Scappaticci was and still is inextricably bound up with and a critical person of interest at the heart of Operation Kenova.'
He continued: 'I believe that we found strong evidence of very serious criminality on the part of Mr Scappaticci and his prosecution would have been in the interests of victims, families and justice.'
Prosecutors said at the time the interim report was published that the examination of files containing evidence of serious criminality by Scappaticci was at an advanced stage at the time of his death.
Freddie Scappaticci, who is widely believed to be the IRA agent known as Stakeknife, outside the offices of the Andersonstown News in west Belfast in 2003 (PA)
Today's News in 90 Seconds - July 28th
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
State secures Supreme Court appeal against citizenship ruling for children of same-sex couples
The State has secured a Supreme Court appeal against a High Court ruling that found failings in how Irish citizenship-by-descent laws treat children born to same-sex parents living abroad. Two separate cases determined by the High Court earlier this year involved children born abroad to two sets of legal mothers following donor-assisted human reproduction (DAHR). In the case of one Irish mother living in Australia, referred to as 'Ms X', her children, on whose birth certificates she is named, were refused passports because she was not their gestational mother, biological father or adoptive parent. Therefore, the Minister for Foreign Affairs found she did not meet the definition of 'parent' under section 7 of the 1956 Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, from which citizenship by descent can be derived. READ MORE The High Court declared that she, her children and her family were treated unequally because the Government failed to provide a way for the boys to achieve Irish citizenship. In the other case, a passport was refused for a Spanish-born child, despite the Irish citizen, 'Ms Y', being the genetic mother but not the gestational mother, having donated her egg to her partner. The High Court found the Minister erred in interpreting section 7 as excluding Ms Y as the child's parent. It also held that Irish law does not afford a properly tailored means of vindicating the rights of a child born abroad to a non-genetic, non-gestational Irish citizen mother. An application made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney General and Ireland seeking to appeal the decisions argued the High Court failed to properly determine the nature and extent of the State's equality obligations. The State parties said there is a need for certainty about who qualifies as a parent or mother. The answer to this question will affect the development of the law in an area of 'particular sensitivity', they said. 'Such determination will have significant implications for, and effects on, the statutory arrangements which are in place, and which will be put in place, to regulate DAHR.' The State parties said the issue is a 'matter of general public importance which will affect a considerable number of people in regard to an important aspect of their lives'. They contended an appeal brings 'no prejudice' to the families and would benefit them 'as it will lead more quickly to a final and conclusive determination of the issues'. In the case of 'Ms Y', in particular, the State said the High Court's interpretation of the section 7 definition of a parent is 'novel and without precedent and is contrary to the vast majority, if not all, prior precedent'. 'It introduces a considerable degree of uncertainty into the law in regard to DAHR, in particular, as to what are the exact circumstances when a genetic mother can qualify as a parent; and as to whether, for the purposes of citizenship by descent, a child can have more than one mother or have more than two parents,' it said. Neither family opposed the State's appeal applications. They both recognised the importance of clarifying the law, saying it is in the public interest to gain certainty as to who qualifies as a 'parent' under citizenship laws. The families have been permitted to cross-appeal claiming, among other points, the High Court was wrong to find that a non-genetic, non-gestational legal parent does not meet the section 7 definition of a parent. Speaking to The Irish Times earlier this year, Ms X said she was 'extremely disappointed' her homeland would not recognise her as a parent to her two sons. 'To be told you are not a parent of your own child is a very hard thing to have to listen to,' she said.
RTÉ News
7 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Legal proceedings in McGregor case not yet at an end
This week, the former MMA fighter Conor McGregor lost his appeal against a High Court jury's finding that he raped Nikita Hand. The jury at the civil trial found that he raped Ms Hand in a hotel room in December 2018 and awarded her just under €250,000 in damages. On Thursday, the Court of Appeal rejected Mr McGregor's appeal against the finding in its entirety. It also rejected an appeal by his friend, James Lawrence, against the High Court's decision to refuse him his costs. However, the legal proceedings are not at an end. Here, our Legal Affairs Correspondent Órla O'Donnell reflects on the case and looks at what could come next. On Thursday, Nikita Hand entered court number one at the Court of Appeal a few minutes before the hearing was due to start. With her, as always, was the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre's accompaniment manager, along with solicitors, Susan Hannon and David Coleman as well as some good friends. Conor McGregor was not there. But for both sides in this case, the stakes were unimaginably high. Mr McGregor has raged against the jury's verdict to his millions of social media followers since the case ended in November 2024. His US-based public relations executives began sending emails to media organisations within minutes of the verdict, claiming he had only been found "liable for assault" by the High Court jury. The PR executives claimed RTÉ News and others, were wrong to say the jury's verdict meant the jurors found he had raped Nikita Hand. They continued to send such emails sporadically in the following months. Their claim has now been firmly refuted by the Court of Appeal. Mr McGregor repeatedly accused Ms Hand of lying and laid emphasis on the fact that he had not faced any criminal charge in relation to the incident in the Beacon Hotel in December 2018. A win in his appeal would allow him to bolster his narrative that he was an innocent man facing trumped up allegations and restore his reputation. Ms Hand on the other hand, had been "put through the wringer" - a statement by her lawyers, endorsed by the Court of Appeal. She had prevailed in "one of the most hard fought trials of recent years". But her reputation had continued to be attacked by Mr McGregor, not only in his social media posts but in his tactics in this appeal. If Mr McGregor won, it would mean Nikita Hand would have to go through a high-profile civil trial all over again. And there was a further risk for her: If Mr McGregor's friend, James Lawrence, won his separate appeal over the refusal to award him his legal costs, then her award of just under €250,000 in damages could be wiped out and she could end up financially ruined. Remarkably, given what was at stake, Ms Hand remained composed as the proceedings began. Sitting bolt upright between her solicitors and her support worker from the Rape Crisis Centre, she gave a quick acknowledgement to the journalists on the opposite side of the court room. Media representatives outnumbered the lawyers in the appeal court with interest in the case from news outlets all over Ireland and further afield. The three judges emerged, presided over by experienced former criminal barrister, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy. The court's decision was given by Mr Justice Brian O'Moore. He said he would not read it all out, but it still took more than an hour to go through the issues. For Ms Hand, it was a rollercoaster. At times, the outcome looked bleak. It was only when the court made its ruling on the final issue of James Lawrence's costs, that the full extent of her vindication became clear. 'Rather tawdry episode' Mr Justice O'Moore said this was a case where the jury had to decide between Mr McGregor's description of a "rather tawdry episode" and Ms Hand's claim that a criminal offence had been committed against her. However, the first part of the court's judgment dealt not with what happened after "four people made their way to a penthouse suite in the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford" in December 2018, but with the "dramatic events" in the Court of Appeal 30 days previously. Mr Justice O'Moore dealt extensively with Mr McGregor's application to introduce "new evidence" which had "come to light" since the trial concluded. This new evidence referred to the sworn statements of Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins who at one stage had lived opposite Nikita Hand in Drimnagh. They swore affidavits about what they had seen and heard after Ms Hand returned from the Beacon Hotel on 9 December 2018. Ms O'Reilly claimed she could see into Nikita's bedroom from her bedroom and could see Nikita's boyfriend at the time, moving in a way that suggested he was assaulting her. Mr Cummins said he heard a commotion but told Ms O'Reilly it was none of their business and didn't look himself. Mr McGregor claimed this was a plausible explanation for severe bruising on Ms Hand's body. Ms Hand described their statements as lies and said she didn't wish to speculate about why they were lying. Just as the appeal was about to get underway, Mr McGregor's lawyers told the court they would be withdrawing their application to introduce this evidence. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal made it clear that they were not happy with the explanations they had been given for this decision. Mr Justice O'Moore said the affidavits were "very comprehensive and clear" and had been sworn in January this year. Neither Ms O'Reilly nor Mr Cummins said they had any difficulty remembering the incident or expressed any doubt about their evidence. And he said they would have been stress tested by Mr McGregor's lawyers, long before the eve of the appeal hearing. The judge said one explanation received by the court for the withdrawal of this evidence, related to the fact that Mr McGregor's lawyers had sought an additional expert opinion from a forensic pathologist, Professor Jack Crane, dealing with when Ms Hand's bruising could have been inflicted. Seeking to introduce new expert evidence to back up an application to introduce other new evidence was admitted by Mr McGregor's lawyers to be a "legal novelty". The first position taken by Mr McGregor's lawyers was that they had further reflected on the legal situation following written submissions on the issue from Ms Hand's lawyers, and had decided to withdraw the application. The Court of Appeal said this was "somewhat puzzling" as there was nothing new in the submissions. Mr McGregor's lawyers also suggested they were taking this step due to a lack of corroboration of Ms O'Reilly's evidence. But the court said it had never previously been suggested that the neighbours' evidence was dependent on Prof Crane's evidence being admitted. Mr Justice O'Moore said Ms O'Reilly's evidence was "crisp, clear and coherent" and the only question was whether it was true. He described this explanation as an "unsustainable position". 'Privileged matters' Mr McGregor's lawyers then claimed there were other reasons for the withdrawal of the evidence - "privileged matters" they did not intend to go into. Mr Justice O'Moore remarked that "some other factor, upon which this court does not wish to speculate, led to the abrupt decision to scuttle one of the more significant grounds of appeal". The court was deeply unimpressed with what happened. The judge said the existence of the new witnesses had "attracted no little attention" since it was first revealed earlier this year. He said the entire import of Ms O'Reilly's evidence was that Nikita Hand's testimony was incomplete and misleading. And he said Instagram messages sent by Ms O'Reilly to Mr McGregor's sister clearly accused Ms Hand of lies. The court ruled that Ms Hand had been completely vindicated in the position she took. Judge O'Moore said she robustly took the stance that Ms O'Reilly's evidence was wrong and the abandonment of the applications with "no plausible reason" could only be seen as an acknowledgement that she was correct. He said by deploying the "new evidence", the McGregor side had subjected the jury's belief that Nikita Hand had been raped to "a root and branch attack". He also said that Mr McGregor's conduct in publicly introducing evidence which fundamentally called into question the correctness of the jury's verdict and Ms Hand's testimony, only to abandon it when it was about to be tested, deserved to be marked "by a palpable sign of the court's displeasure and disapproval". He awarded Ms Hand the costs of the proceedings relating to this issue on a "legal practitioner and own client basis" against Mr McGregor. Awarding costs in this way, is significant and is not done regularly. Usually if someone is awarded their costs in legal proceedings they get them on a "party and party" basis. Surprisingly, it doesn't mean they get back all the costs they have actually accrued during the case. During the costs hearing in the High Court, Ms Hand's Senior Counsel, John Gordon suggested that someone who is successful in a court case and gets their costs on the ordinary basis gets back only about 80% of what they actually spent. Other legal sources say the true figure is actually around 60-70% of what a person spends. However awarding costs at the highest level, means someone will get back almost everything they have spent, including all the costs they have accrued with their own solicitor. The court went on to comprehensively dismiss the first of Mr McGregor's remaining grounds of appeal – the question the jury had to answer. They were asked: "Did Conor McGregor assault Nikita Ní Láimhín (Hand), yes or no?" Mr McGregor's lawyers had argued that some members of the jury may have been confused about what exactly they were being asked and may have decided he was liable for an ordinary assault instead of rape. They also submitted that the relatively low award of damages was not consistent with a finding of rape. Mr Justice O'Moore ruled the trial judge could not have been clearer in explaining that what was meant by the question was rape. He said it was "simply unreal" to suggest the jury were confused, faced with the issue framed in such a "brutally clear way", even though the damages awarded were "not generous". A more substantive ground of appeal was Mr McGregor's answers to gardaí when he was interviewed by them in connection with their investigation into Ms Hand's allegations. The trial judge allowed Mr McGregor to be cross examined about the fact that he gave a series of "no comment" answers to gardaí. The Court of Appeal found this ruling was incorrect. And it rejected a further submission that this questioning was justifiable to allow the jury to understand the background to issues in the case. But it ruled that the warnings given to the jury about this matter were sufficient to rule out the risk of an unfair trial. The court also ruled against Mr McGregor on all the remaining issues, dismissing the appeal "in its entirety". However, the issue of James Lawrence's costs remained. He argued he should have been awarded his costs as the jury had found he did not rape Ms Hand as she alleged. Ms Hand's lawyers had suggested to the court that if he were to get his costs, her award of damages would be more than wiped out. But the Court of Appeal had signalled during the hearing that this was not something they could consider. In the court's ruling, Mr Justice O'Moore said he was unimpressed by this argument. He pointed out that alleging sexual assault against Mr Lawrence was a terribly serious thing to do. Judge O'Moore also said he did not agree with the rationale of the trial judge for refusing Mr Lawrence his costs. Mr Justice Owens ruled that the jury's verdict meant they didn't believe Mr Lawrence's evidence about his own interactions with Ms Hand. The Court of Appeal said this analysis was flawed. But it found the verdict could only have meant the jury didn't believe Mr Lawrence's evidence about what happened between Ms Hand and his friend, Conor McGregor. Mr Justice O'Moore analysed Mr Lawrence's conduct, and what he said were the unusual circumstances of this case. The judge said it was "unusual" that Mr Lawrence had pleaded that he had consensual sex with Ms Hand, given that she had said she had no recollection of being sexually assaulted by him. If he had not made this plea, it would have been a possibility that the case against Mr Lawrence would have been dismissed at the end of the evidence. Plea made 'tactical' sense - judge The judge said the plea made "tactical" sense by presenting an "ostensibly coherent joint narrative" between Mr Lawrence and Mr McGregor. He also analysed the evidence given by James Lawrence on the one issue about which he said, the jury's view was not in doubt. The judge said the jury's verdict meant they believed Mr McGregor raped Nikita Hand, whereas Mr Lawrence gave evidence that the sex between Ms Hand and Mr McGregor was consensual. Judge O'Moore said Ms Hand's account must have been believed by the jury and Mr Lawrence's account must have been rejected. Therefore he said Mr Lawrence's evidence on this issue could only be regarded as untruthful. The court ruled that the giving of such evidence was a very serious matter, and was enough on its own to deprive Mr Lawrence of his costs. But it found another significant factor was the evidence of Mr McGregor that he had paid those costs for Mr Lawrence. Mr McGregor appeared to deny on social media that he ever admitted paying his friend's costs but the transcript shows that when he was asked in the witness box if he paid the fees he swore Mr Lawrence was his friend and "wouldn't have the fees for it so I believe I may have, yeah…." Mr Justice O'Moore said part of the reason for awarding costs is to make right the damage to someone who has been wrongly sued. But he said this was pointless if someone else had paid their costs for them. Arrangements between McGregor and Lawrence were 'shrouded in mystery' - judge He said the arrangements between the two men were "shrouded in mystery". But he said if Mr Lawrence didn't repay Mr McGregor he would have received a bounty of several hundred thousand euro and it would not be appropriate to enrich him by providing him with money for costs that he had never had to pay. If Mr Lawrence did repay Mr McGregor then it would mean Ms Hand would have to make a payment to a man who gave inaccurate evidence about her, and ultimately to the man who raped her. This he said should weigh heavily with the court. The judge also pointed out that having two sets of lawyers to cross examine Ms Hand, brought significant advantages to Mr McGregor. He dismissed Mr Lawrence's appeal, saying the appeal court had come to the same decision as the High Court judge, albeit for different reasons. It was at this point that Nikita Hand finally relaxed. She hugged her friends and lawyers and wiped away tears as the reality of the court's decision hit home. Outside court, holding a piece of paper in trembling hands she gave a very brief statement to the media explaining how the appeal had retraumatised her, before expressing the hope she could now finally heal. The legal proceedings are not at an end, however. Within minutes of the court's verdict, Ms Hand's lawyers lodged papers beginning an action against Ms O'Reilly, Mr Cummins and Mr McGregor for "malicious abuse of the process of the court". That case will take many months to come to court. On social media, in a flurry of posts, Mr McGregor welcomed the fact that "this is still ongoing", saying he believed the witnesses and criticising his own lawyers for not calling their evidence. He reposted a post from the AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk's X, suggesting he was "innocent" from its "analysis of the evidence", notably "excluding court rulings". He appeared to be posting from a yacht, while on holidays with his partner Dee Devlin and their children. As well as criticising Ms Hand, his lawyers and the court's decision, he published further posts suggesting he should be the next president of Ireland, describing Ms Devlin as Ireland's "first lady". Mr McGregor can attempt to challenge the appeal court's decision but he will have to get permission from the Supreme Court. That court allows appeals in the interests of justice or where there is a point of law of general public importance. The consequences of his withdrawal of the "new evidence" have also still to play out. The appeal court has referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions who may ask gardaí to investigate allegations of perjury.
Irish Daily Mirror
11 hours ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
Ireland's Dan Sheehan cited for clear-out in Lions third test match
Ireland hooker Dan Sheehan has been cited following a controversial clear-out on Australia fly-half Tom Lynagh during the British and Irish Lions' third Test victory in Sydney. The incident occurred in the second half, when Sheehan entered a ruck and made forceful contact with Lynagh, who was then forced off the field with a head injury. He did not return to play following the hit undergoing a Head Injury Assessment (HIA). Although match officials reviewed the incident at the time and allowed play to continue without sanction, the citing commissioner has since deemed the act potentially dangerous, triggering a disciplinary review. READ MORE:Ireland warm up for Rugby World Cup with comeback win in Cork READ MORE: Madie Gibson stars as impressive Athlone Town progress in Champions League The case will be heard on Sunday, with Sheehan facing a possible suspension depending on the findings. A ban could affect his availability for Ireland's upcoming fixtures. The incident has divided opinion, with some defending Sheehan's actions as part of the physical demands of Test rugby, while others believe the clear-out was reckless and endangered player safety. It has also reignited wider discussions around ruck technique and head injury protocols. Sheehan has been a key figure for Ireland in recent years and was one of the standout players in the Lions squad. A disciplinary ruling against him would be a blow to Andy Farrell's plans heading into the autumn internationals. More information is expected following the outcome of Sunday's hearing. Get the latest sports headlines straight to your inbox by signing up for free email .
