DETAILS OF a previously unknown investigation into how vital Garda information came into the possession of the IRA were revealed at the Smithwick Tribunal yesterday.
Former Garda commissioner Noel Conroy said he had undertaken an inquiry into how copies of Garda documents, naming loyalist Ian Sprule as a suspect in the 1987 bombings of Ballybofey, Co Donegal, ended up in IRA hands.
The IRA killed Mr Sprule in April 1991 and produced a copy of the Garda Fógra Tora (information booklet) naming Mr Sprule in support of its action. The organisation said a second suspect named in the Garda documents had escaped.
Mr Conroy said he had begun an investigation and report within days of the IRA claims in April 1991, when he was a chief superintendent, at the request of the Garda commissioner. However, he accepted he had not mentioned this investigation to the Smithwick Tribunal when he gave previous evidence to it in September 2011.
The tribunal is investigating allegations that members of the Garda leaked information to the IRA which facilitated the killings of RUC officers Chief Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan in south Armagh in 1989.
Mary Laverty SC for the tribunal said it had only become aware of Mr Conroy’s 1991 report, entitled Alleged leaks of Information to the IRA, in recent weeks through references made by a former deputy assistant chief constable of Northern Ireland, identified only as witness 68.
Witness 68 said he had carried out a contemporaneous investigation to the Conroy report. This parallel RUC report had expressed “grave concern” and “established beyond doubt” information was leaked to the IRA from a number of Garda stations in Donegal.
Mr Conroy’s report had concluded it could not be established from where the leaks came. He told the tribunal he had not ruled out a Garda leak, but had been faced with a lack of co-operation from potential civilian witnesses and had nothing definitive to go on.
Ms Laverty said the tribunal might never have known of Mr Conroy’s report had it not been for the information supplied by witness 68. She asked if Mr Conroy was aware of any other reports which the tribunal did not have and of which he may be aware.
Mr Conroy said he was not.
Mark Robinson for the PSNI asked Mr Conroy if it was the case that information might not be offered by him unless it was specifically asked for. Mr Conroy said he was “not trying to hide information from the tribunal; far be it from the truth”.
