The following statement was issued by Mr Desmond O'Malley TD yesterday: I watched the Prime Time programme last night relating to one limited aspect of the Arms Trial of 1970.
At the outset I want to make it clear that I did not engage, as was implied last night, in altering anybody's evidence nor did I approve of or condone anyone else doing so. It seems to me that to try to alter or delete part of somebody's statement of evidence would in any event be a futile exercise because when a witness is giving evidence in court he is free to state whatever he wants to by way of evidence.
As I have stated already, I have no recollection of seeing the particular document, which is not surprising given the passage of 31 years.
I particularly take issue with the assertion that if State counsel knew the full extent of Col Hefferon's proposed evidence they might have taken a different view about the prosecution and not gone ahead against some of the defendants. The fact is that the State counsel were aware of Col Hefferon's full evidence, which they heard given at the first abortive trial. They could then have decided on the basis of that not to proceed with the second trial against some of the defendants at least and could have entered a nolle prosequi. In the second trial they decided not to call Col Hefferon as a witness for the State, although he did apparently give evidence the second time at the request of the judge.
I think it should be explained that at that time prosecutions were carried out at the direction of the Attorney General. There was no DPP. When various statements were received from the gardai or other sources a book of evidence was prepared either in the Chief State Solicitor's office or in the Attorney General's office or perhaps in both. The Department of Justice has and had no function in prosecutions, contrary to popular belief.
Where a witness made multiple statements these were synopsised into one statement of evidence for the book of evidence. This was done by those preparing the book of evidence. In this case Col Hefferon and at least two other witnesses made multiple statements.
The book of evidence would have been available in court and was a public document since it was served sometime in the summer of 1970. Col Hefferon's statements and allegations about Mr Gibbons, which were claimed to have been deleted from the statement of evidence, were first voiced in full in public at the first trial in September 1970 and were repeated at the second trial in October 1970. These allegations, therefore, do not seem to be in any sense new. The statement in question bears no writing or other marks of mine.
