Criminal probe launched over asbestos at south Belfast site
The site, located between the Donegall Road and the Westlink, hit the headlines last month when a loyalist July 11th bonfire was sited and lit despite the presence of asbestos, as well as its proximity to an electricity sub station.
Advertisement
On Friday, Stormont Agriculture and Environment Minister Andrew Muir said the presence of asbestos on the site, which is privately owned, is now under criminal investigation by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA).
Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister Andrew Muir said a probe had been launched. Photo: Liam McBurney/PA.
He told BBC Radio Ulster that the NEA 'rightly considers this very seriously and will be doing all that they can in regards to it because this is an issue of concern and the officials in my department are working studiously in regards to it'.
A spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs confirmed a criminal investigation has been initiated.
'While the immediate focus for the NIEA is on the efforts by the landowner to remove the asbestos pile safely from the site, it should be noted that as NIEA has initiated a criminal investigation into this matter the agency is unable to comment further on the specifics of this site.
Advertisement
'It is important to note that removing the asbestos will be a highly specialised, complex and delicate operation that will require the site to be fully vacated. Indeed, the work is of such complexity that the full removal will take a number of weeks.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- The Guardian
Legal cases could prise open Epstein cache despite Trump's blocking effort
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed that his administration would release a tranche of documents in the criminal investigation into disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein. But since Trump returned to the White House, his promises have fallen flat, with few documents released – and backtracking about releasing more records. The lack of disclosure has prompted not only dissatisfaction among those seeking information about Epstein's crimes, but political flak Trump can't seem to deflect, especially about his own relations with the convicted sex trafficker. But where political pressures have so far failed, legal pressures that have largely sailed under the radar of the fierce debate about Epstein's crimes could yet succeed and bring crucial information in the public eye. Several court cases provide some hope that even if Trump's justice department fails to make good on calls for transparency, potentially revelatory records about Epstein, his crimes and his links to some of the most powerful people in the US might still see the light of day. Moreover, it is possible that the justice department's unusual request to unseal grand jury transcripts, in Epstein and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal cases, could also undermine opposition to it releasing records. One lawsuit brought by the news website Radar Online and investigative journalist James Robertson stems from their April 2017 public records request for documents related to the FBI's investigation of Epstein. This request came years after Epstein pleaded guilty to state-level crimes in Florida for soliciting a minor for prostitution – and before his 2019 arrest on child sex-trafficking charges in New York federal court. Radar and Robertson filed suit in May 2017 after the FBI did not respond to their request; the agency ultimately agreed that it would process documents at a rate of 500 pages per month, per court documents. 'Despite the FBI identifying at least 11,571 pages of responsive documents, 10,107 of those pages remain withheld nearly 20 years after the events at issue,' according to court papers filed by Radar and Robertson. Although Epstein killed himself in custody awaiting trial, and Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence, the FBI is fighting release of more documents. The agency has invoked an exception to public records disclosure that allow for documents to be withheld if their release would interfere with law enforcement proceedings. The Manhattan federal court judge overseeing this public records suit sided with the FBI's citation of these exemptions, but Radar is pursuing an appeal that could be heard in the second circuit court of appeals this fall. 'In court, they insist that releasing even one additional page from the Epstein file would hurt their ability to re-prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell in the event the supreme court orders a new trial,' a spokesperson for Radar said. 'It's a flimsy rationale and we are challenging it head on in the court of appeals. Our only hope of understanding how the FBI failed to hold Epstein accountable for over a decade – and preventing future miscarriages of justice – is if the government releases the files.' It's also possible that the justice department's request to release grand jury transcripts in Epstein and Maxwell's cases could bolster arguments for the release of records. 'The DoJ's core argument against disclosure for the past six years has been that it would jeopardize their ability to put – and keep – Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. They say that releasing even a single page could threaten their case,' the Radar spokesperson said. 'Naturally, any support they offer to release material undermines their claims.' Separately, developments in civil litigation involving Epstein and Maxwell could also potentially lead to the disclosure of more documents surrounding their crimes. A federal judge in 2024 unsealed a cache of documents in the late Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre Roberts's defamation case against Maxwell. Some documents were kept under seal, however, and journalists pursuing release of documents appealed against that decision. On 23 July, the second circuit decided that it found 'no error in the district court's decisions not to unseal or make public many of the documents at issue', but it also ordered the lower court to review possibly unsealing them. Robert's attorney Sigrid McCawley reportedly said she was 'thrilled with the decision' and also said she was 'hopeful that this order leads to the release of more information about Epstein's monstrous sex trafficking operation and those who facilitated it and participated in it', according to Courthouse News Service. Others who have represented Epstein victims have called for disclosure of public records – and voiced frustration about being stonewalled in their pursuit of documents. Jennifer Freeman, special counsel at Marsh Law Firm, who represents Epstein accuser Maria Farmer, previously told the Guardian she had made a public records request for information related to her client, with no success. Spencer T Kuvin, chief legal officer of GoldLaw and an attorney for several Epstein victims, hopes that public records battles could help pull back the veil on Epstein information. 'I think that the Foia requests will absolutely assist in the disclosure of information. The DoJ has made blanket objections citing ongoing investigations, but through Foia litigation the courts can test those objections by potentially reviewing the information 'in camera',' Kuvin said. 'This means that an independent judge may be appointed to review the information to determine whether the DoJ's objections are accurate or just a cover.' Roy Gutterman, director of the Newhouse School's Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, cautioned that calls for disclosures – and even government requests to release some files – might not be a panacea for access to extensive documents. 'This case is already complicated, and there were already too many cooks in the very crowded kitchen, and it's getting more crowded as more public interest grows in the grand jury materials as well as the now-settled defamation case,' Gutterman said. But stonewalling could also continue. With the public records requests, it's possible that US federal authorities could still successfully cite the investigation exemption and keep documents out of pubic view. 'Using Foia for FBI and law enforcement materials related to this case, might be a creative newsgathering tactic, but the law enforcement exemption the government is citing might be legitimate because some of the materials are grand jury materials and some other materials might include private or unsubstantiated allegations,' Gutterman said. 'The reporter in me thinks there is an important public interest in revealing these documents, but the law might end up keeping most material secret. Even with the widespread and growing public interest, it might be too big an ask to unseal a lot of this material. 'Practically speaking, the DoJ might also be very selective in which materials it would want to release as well because of the political element involved here, too.'
Times
12 hours ago
- Times
Sealing Stakeknife's will weakens faith in security services
In a remarkable judgment last week, details of the will of a Belfast builder were sealed for 70 years — a provision previously made only for members of the royal family. The step was taken to keep secret the estate of Freddie Scappaticci who was the agent Stakeknife, British intelligence's top spy inside the IRA during the Troubles. While spying on republican leaders, Scappaticci was also chief interrogator, torturer and executioner for the IRA's internal security unit, which hunted and killed suspected informants. He was exposed in 2003 and was spirited away by MI5 to live under false names at comfortable addresses in Surrey until his death in hospital in March 2023. When he died Scappaticci was the chief suspect in a police investigation, Operation Kenova, which linked him to at least 14 murders. Detectives concluded that many of those killings could have been prevented by his handlers. • Secret court seals will of IRA spy Stakeknife until 2095 Just why is this killer entitled to state protection after his death? Why has a senior judge afforded him the same post-mortem secrecy given to Prince Philip and the Queen Mother? After a closed-door hearing, Sir Julian Flaux found there could be a threat to the safety of his beneficiaries. Those are most likely to be his six children; yet no evidence has been cited of any threat to them since their father disappeared from Belfast. The judge also insisted that there was nothing remotely interesting to the press or the public in Scappaticci's will. How he knows that without asking to hear submissions from interested parties is a mystery. Did the judge think to ask for the views of the survivors of IRA interrogations or the families of those killed by Scappaticci who have lodged 30 civil claims against him? The contents of his estate (which presumably include the proceeds of a £443,000 house sale in 2019) are a matter of legitimate interest in those cases. • MoD sought another superinjunction 20 years ago, archives reveal I fear the courts have once again been hoodwinked by the application of the security services' doctrine of NCND (neither confirm nor deny). Created by the CIA in the 1970s, NCND is enthusiastically applied by Whitehall to cloak its more embarrassing secrets. NCND is a necessary tool to protect sensitive operations and information. But in the Stakeknife case it is used to bury uncomfortable truths and thwart justice. A report into the scandal last year was prevented under NCND from formally identifying Scappaticci as Stakeknife. The continued adherence to NCND in the Stakeknife scandal is ridiculous. It undermines public trust in the security services. To restore even a semblance of faith, NCND and its limits must be properly codified, not continually stretched.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Legal cases could prise open Epstein cache despite Trump's blocking effort
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed that his administration would release a tranche of documents in the criminal investigation into disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein. But since Trump returned to the White House, his promises have fallen flat, with few documents released – and backtracking about releasing more records. The lack of disclosure has prompted not only dissatisfaction among those seeking information about Epstein's crimes, but political flak Trump can't seem to deflect, especially about his own relations with the convicted sex trafficker. But where political pressures have so far failed, legal pressures that have largely sailed under the radar of the fierce debate about Epstein's crimes could yet succeed and bring crucial information in the public eye. Several court cases provide some hope that even if Trump's justice department fails to make good on calls for transparency, potentially revelatory records about Epstein, his crimes and his links to some of the most powerful people in the US might still see the light of day. Moreover, it is possible that the justice department's unusual request to unseal grand jury transcripts, in Epstein and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal cases, could also undermine opposition to it releasing records. One lawsuit brought by the news website Radar Online and investigative journalist James Robertson stems from their April 2017 public records request for documents related to the FBI's investigation of Epstein. This request came years after Epstein pleaded guilty to state-level crimes in Florida for soliciting a minor for prostitution – and before his 2019 arrest on child sex-trafficking charges in New York federal court. Radar and Robertson filed suit in May 2017 after the FBI did not respond to their request; the agency ultimately agreed that it would process documents at a rate of 500 pages per month, per court documents. 'Despite the FBI identifying at least 11,571 pages of responsive documents, 10,107 of those pages remain withheld nearly 20 years after the events at issue,' according to court papers filed by Radar and Robertson. Although Epstein killed himself in custody awaiting trial, and Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence, the FBI is fighting release of more documents. The agency has invoked an exception to public records disclosure that allow for documents to be withheld if their release would interfere with law enforcement proceedings. The Manhattan federal court judge overseeing this public records suit sided with the FBI's citation of these exemptions, but Radar is pursuing an appeal that could be heard in the second circuit court of appeals this fall. 'In court, they insist that releasing even one additional page from the Epstein file would hurt their ability to re-prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell in the event the supreme court orders a new trial,' a spokesperson for Radar said. 'It's a flimsy rationale and we are challenging it head on in the court of appeals. Our only hope of understanding how the FBI failed to hold Epstein accountable for over a decade – and preventing future miscarriages of justice – is if the government releases the files.' It's also possible that the justice department's request to release grand jury transcripts in Epstein and Maxwell's cases could bolster arguments for the release of records. 'The DoJ's core argument against disclosure for the past six years has been that it would jeopardize their ability to put – and keep – Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. They say that releasing even a single page could threaten their case,' the Radar spokesperson said. 'Naturally, any support they offer to release material undermines their claims.' Separately, developments in civil litigation involving Epstein and Maxwell could also potentially lead to the disclosure of more documents surrounding their crimes. A federal judge in 2024 unsealed a cache of documents in the late Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre Roberts's defamation case against Maxwell. Some documents were kept under seal, however, and journalists pursuing release of documents appealed against that decision. On 23 July, the second circuit decided that it found 'no error in the district court's decisions not to unseal or make public many of the documents at issue', but it also ordered the lower court to review possibly unsealing them. Robert's attorney Sigrid McCawley reportedly said she was 'thrilled with the decision' and also said she was 'hopeful that this order leads to the release of more information about Epstein's monstrous sex trafficking operation and those who facilitated it and participated in it', according to Courthouse News Service. Others who have represented Epstein victims have called for disclosure of public records – and voiced frustration about being stonewalled in their pursuit of documents. Jennifer Freeman, special counsel at Marsh Law Firm, who represents Epstein accuser Maria Farmer, previously told the Guardian she had made a public records request for information related to her client, with no success. Spencer T Kuvin, chief legal officer of GoldLaw and an attorney for several Epstein victims, hopes that public records battles could help pull back the veil on Epstein information. 'I think that the Foia requests will absolutely assist in the disclosure of information. The DoJ has made blanket objections citing ongoing investigations, but through Foia litigation the courts can test those objections by potentially reviewing the information 'in camera',' Kuvin said. 'This means that an independent judge may be appointed to review the information to determine whether the DoJ's objections are accurate or just a cover.' Roy Gutterman, director of the Newhouse School's Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, cautioned that calls for disclosures – and even government requests to release some files – might not be a panacea for access to extensive documents. 'This case is already complicated, and there were already too many cooks in the very crowded kitchen, and it's getting more crowded as more public interest grows in the grand jury materials as well as the now-settled defamation case,' Gutterman said. But stonewalling could also continue. With the public records requests, it's possible that US federal authorities could still successfully cite the investigation exemption and keep documents out of pubic view. 'Using Foia for FBI and law enforcement materials related to this case, might be a creative newsgathering tactic, but the law enforcement exemption the government is citing might be legitimate because some of the materials are grand jury materials and some other materials might include private or unsubstantiated allegations,' Gutterman said. 'The reporter in me thinks there is an important public interest in revealing these documents, but the law might end up keeping most material secret. Even with the widespread and growing public interest, it might be too big an ask to unseal a lot of this material. 'Practically speaking, the DoJ might also be very selective in which materials it would want to release as well because of the political element involved here, too.'
