Judge warns no-show witness
A witness who failed to appear before the Morris Tribunal was today warned it was in his own interest to give evidence over an arson attack at the site of a telephone mast in Donegal.
Judge Frederick Morris said Hugh Diver’s attitude of non-cooperation towards the tribunal would not benefit himself or the investigation.
Solicitor David Walley, who represents the Donegal man in a separate High Court action, agreed to also advise him in his dealings with the tribunal.
Judge Morris, the tribunal chairman, said: “Mr Diver was here yesterday and made a number of remarks which he might regret and I find myself in a position where I am going to be required to make some sort of an order.
“I understand you continue to work for him in his High Court action, and I would be concerned that someone speak to the man and let him see that the attitude he is adopting towards the tribunal is not one that is going to benefit either himself or us.”
Mr Diver was summoned to give evidence before the Ardara module of the tribunal, which is examining claims an explosive device was constructed at a Donegal garda station and planted at a controversial mast in Ardara in November 1996 in order to arrest a number of people.
Three men – including Mr Diver, his late brother Anthony Diver and Bernard Shovlin – were arrested by gardaí following the discovery of the device.
The device was discovered only two weeks after an equipment container at the site was burned causing IR£50,000 of damage.
After refusing to co-operate with the tribunal yesterday, Mr Diver was requested to reappear at 10.30am today to give an explanation of his views in the presence of his solicitor before any action was taken. However, Mr Diver failed to appear.
Judge Morris said he was not raising any judgment but a person did set fire to the container at Ardara causing extensive damage to equipment.
“I stress I am not making any finding in this but among the people that were possible suspects was Mr Diver, I ask the rhetorical question: what conclusion am I to draw if he refuses to come and answer any questions in relation to that?” the chairman said.
“I would be grateful if you would point that out to him to. In his own interests he should come and tell us what the position is and if he has an answer to these hints and suggestions he should give it to us.”
The tribunal heard that in July 2002 a barrister applied and was granted limited legal representation for Mr Diver.
Judge Morris said the module would only take a few weeks and the issue of cost for legal representation would then be quickly dealt with.
Mr Walley, who had stepped down from representing several other clients due to the cost of legal representation in May 2004, said he had believed he had also stopped representing Mr Diver and Mr Shovlin before the tribunal.
Judge Morris said the witness had made extraordinarily derogatory comments about the tribunal in his brief appearance yesterday.
“I would be very grateful if you could impress on him all we are trying to do here is find out the truth of what was happening and it would be of considerable assistance if Mr Diver were represented before the tribunal,” Judge Morris said.
“I would be grateful if you could see a way to continue to act for him.”
The solicitor agreed to advise the witness following the appeal from Judge Morris.
Judge Morris said Mr Diver would now be required to appear before the tribunal on November 7.
| Related Stories: |
|
