logo
Daughter of Denis Donaldson demands public inquiry into killing after Adams case

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.
BBC videograb of Denis Donaldson (PA)
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.
Solicitor Ciaran Shiels outside the High Court in Dublin (Brian Lawless/PA)
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.
Judge Alexander Owens (Brian Lawless/PA)
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.
Tom Hogan, barrister for former Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams (Brian Lawless/PA)
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.'
He added: 'In no circumstances am I going to permit you to give evidence to the jury.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer's coalition of the willing has been saved from itself
Starmer's coalition of the willing has been saved from itself

Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Spectator

Starmer's coalition of the willing has been saved from itself

It is commonplace to accuse politicians of being out of touch. There is often some truth in the charge, and our elected representatives take it on the chin. One of the least likely politicians to face this charge has always been John Healey: the defence secretary has been one of the most sensible and pragmatic ministers in Sir Keir Starmer's cabinet – not a high bar, admittedly. And yet there are signs that he has succumbed to the Ministry of Defence's corrosive habit of dealing with the world as it wants it to be, not as it is. We all watched the news from Friday's summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage. However you try to frame the encounter, it was at best a huge disappointment for the US president. His Russian counterpart conceded nothing and his armed forces continue to pound Ukraine's cities. Meanwhile, his pre-conditions for any kind of negotiations remain the maximal aims with which he began the war: Ukraine must cede territory to Russia, rule out membership of Nato indefinitely and, in practice, allow the Kremlin a veto over its foreign policy. And yet, John Healey can't be accused of being a pessimist. 'In the circumstances of a ceasefire we're ready to put UK boots on the ground in Ukraine,' he told the BBC on Friday, shortly before the talks began. 'They are ready to go, they're ready to act from day one. The military plans are complete.' This is, of course, the 'coalition of the willing' which Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have worked so hard to assemble. But there is one problem: it may indeed be 'ready to go' – although this is doubtful – but there is no ceasefire nor any prospect of a ceasefire, and Russia has violated previous pauses in the fighting with impunity. Secretary of state Marco Rubio was downbeat in the wake of the summit. 'There remain some big areas of disagreement,' he admitted to ABC's This Week. 'We're not at the precipice of an agreement, we're not at the edge of one.' President Trump, for whom consistency is something that applies to other people, seems to have decided a ceasefire is no longer important, despite having previously stressed what a priority it was. He casually edited reality on his Truth Social platform in his characteristic and odd way: It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often times do not hold up. Where does this leave the coalition of the willing? Starmer and Macron are now all dressed up with nowhere to go. They have made an enormous play of their genuinely tireless efforts in constructing the coalition, but its only purpose is to monitor, police or help implement a ceasefire in Ukraine. It is now plain to any rational observer that there will be no ceasefire in the foreseeable future, because it is not an approach which suits Putin and he now knows that Trump has little intention of putting pressure on him to bring it about. That may prove good fortune in a heavy disguise for Starmer because there is another consideration. Our armed forces are in no position to deploy significant numbers of troops in a safe and sustainable way to Ukraine. The size of the coalition's anticipated deployment is unknown but has been a moving target: in February, President Zelenskyy talked about needing a force of between 100,000 and 150,000. At the time, the Ministry of Defence carelessly allowed the idea to circulate that the UK might contribute 20,000 troops. In March, Starmer talked about 30,000 troops. The following month, the chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, consulted with his military colleagues in the coalition of the willing about generating a force of 64,000, and was told that not only was that utterly unrealistic, but that less than half that number, even 25,000, would be extremely challenging. Once again, UK ministers are trumpeting an idea that by definition cannot come to fruition. Without a ceasefire, putting boots on the ground in Ukraine is impossible; even if there were a ceasefire, the UK does not have the resources, especially in terms of artillery and logistics, to assemble anything more than a battlegroup of maybe 1,000 soldiers. Even our current commitments are stretching us. For context, Russia is estimated to have 600,000 soldiers in and around Ukraine. John Healey seems to have retreated into a comforting game of 'what if?', supposing that every eventuality he wants has come to pass and is then telling the media what the UK would do. Increasingly, though, he is talking not about potential outcomes but doors which have already closed. What if Russia agreed to a ceasefire, what if Putin moderated his demands, what if Russia and Ukraine could find an acceptable long-term settlement? As Jake says in the closing pages of Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, 'Isn't it pretty to think so?'

'Facial recognition can make mistakes, it's not a decision-maker'
'Facial recognition can make mistakes, it's not a decision-maker'

BBC News

time2 hours ago

  • BBC News

'Facial recognition can make mistakes, it's not a decision-maker'

Later this year, as you walk down the street in West Yorkshire, your face may well be checked against a criminal facial recognition (LFR) has been used by some police forces for eight years - but new funding means it is now to be rolled out in more week, the Home Office confirmed that a total of 10 new LFR vans would be deployed across the country, with two of those set to be used in West Yorkshire, according to government said the technology had been used in London to make 580 arrests in 12 months, including 52 registered sex offenders who breached their groups have said they are worried about how intrusive LFR could prove to Alison Lowe, West Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner, has told the BBC that photographs and data collected by LFR will not be Lowe explained: "Those photographs will be inputted into the system. It's using a live feed, and it measures against that police watch list. Other faces get pixelated out automatically."The technology is so sophisticated that it just has numbers - even for the people that it recognises, it's just a series of numbers. But then there's a match that will pop up for the police and they'll only see the face of the person on the watch list. "After that piece of work is finished, when they're going home for the day, all those faces are deleted from the system." There have been concerns about false matches when LFR is Thompson, 39, who was wrongly identified as a suspect by LFR last year, and who is now bringing a High Court challenge against the Metropolitan Police, describes live facial recognition as "stop and search on steroids".Ms Lowe said she was aware that LFR technology could make mistakes and police needed to be clear in how they used it."It definitely causes me concern as I've worked with black and brown communities for many years and I hold myself to a very high standard in regard to cases of disproportionality," she said."It can make mistakes, and the whole point of live facial recognition is that it's not a decision-maker."Ms Lowe said mistaken identity was easy to disprove when a human reviewed the matches by LFR technology."There's got to be a lot of training associated with this," she said."We know the College of Policing have been looking at whether or not bias in relation to ethnicity, race or gender is embedded, and apparently it's neutral as to those things. "We need to be alive to those risks. We need to be holding the police and criminal justice partners to account." West Yorkshire Police declined an interview request about the introduction of LFR vans in the county, but confirmed that two LFR vehicles would be brought into use by the force later this a statement, human rights organisation Liberty said of the use of LFR technology by police forces: "Any tech which has the potential to infringe on our rights in the way scanning and identifying millions of people does need to have safeguards around its use."Madeleine Stone, senior advocacy officer at privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, said LFR was being rolled out "without a proper legal basis"."There's never been a vote, there's never been a consultation from the public or from parliament," she said."So the fact that the government is investing millions in taxpayer's money into this Orwellian and undemocratic technology is a real misstep and we're really, really concerned about it."Home Secretary and West Yorkshire Labour MP Yvette Cooper has pledged that people's data would remain secure if their images were caught on Cooper said: "The overwhelming majority of images are deleted within 0.2 seconds, so for those who are not on the wanted list of serious criminals, those images are not held. They are immediately deleted."There do have to be safeguards. We will do a new legal framework. I think this is technology that we do need to make sure is properly used." Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store