GARETH
Peirce's repeated attempts to gain access to the information received by MI5
before the bombings, as leaked by David Shayler in November 1997, were, for
over a year, met with a wall of silence from the Crown Prosecution Service.
"I filed a formal complaint with the Director of Public Prosecutions about this
lack of response - about the failure of the CPS to provide us with a reply"
she says, but in reply she was told that her request for the information was
under 'active consideration'.
Ominously, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the person whose job it is to
decide whether or not those intelligence files will be opened, is David Calvert-Smith
QC, the chief prosecution counsel at Samar and Jawad's trial. Securing the conviction
of Samar and Jawad in relation to the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour
House was one of the 'achievements' that were cited in the press as having led
to him being appointed to the position of DPP. In these circumstances, one shudders
to think how impartial his judgment is likely to have been when deciding whether
or not to authorise the disclosure of information that could undermine his 'finest
hour'.
Then Ms Peirce was told that there would have to be a Public Interest Immunity
(PII) hearing in relation to the MI5 information. This PII hearing will be held
on Monday 15 March 1999 at the High Court in London, in the same building
at which Samar and Jawads leave to appeal hearing will be held a mere two weeks
later. At the PII hearing, the judge, in the absence of anyone from the defence,
will hear arguments only from the prosecution who will try to persuade him that
the MI5 information should be withheld from the defence on the grounds of 'public
interest immunity'. Of course, none of Samar and Jawad's legal team will be
allowed to play any part in reaching this decision or to know what the information
is that is being withheld from them
If some of the MI5 information is released, but some is withheld, the fact that
such important evidence has not been disclosed can itself become one of the
grounds argued at the leave to appeal hearing on 29 March. Quite simply, the
release of this MI5 information, currently being opposed by the prosecution,
is vital to Samar and Jawad's chances of success at their leave to appeal hearing
and, ultimately, to them proving their innocence.
Aside from these issues surrounding the lack of disclosure of the MI5 information,
the following are the current grounds of appeal: