Murder trial 'first ever Irish case to mention tracking device'

Mr Evans and Mr McGrath have also pleaded not guilty to firearm offences at the same address and on the same date.

The court has heard that Mr Butterly was “lured” to the car park of the Huntsman Inn by another man not before the court at approximately 2pm on the date in question.

A Toyota Corolla was seen entering the car park and within minutes, shots were discharged at Mr Butterly's vehicle and further shots were discharged when he exited his car and attempted to flee.

Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh SC, said Mr Butterly was found by a lone garda collapsed in a corner of the car park and was pronounced dead a short time later.

Ms Ní Raifeartaigh said the DPP will call on evidence from Mr David Cullen (30), with a last address at Brackenwood Ave, Balbriggan, who was “part of the murder plan himself” but turned sate witness earlier this year.

The court has heard that gardaí sought judicial approval to use a tracking device on the Toyota Corolla vehicle which was seen entering the Huntsman Inn shortly before the shooting took place.

Prosecuting Counsel, Alex Owens SC, told the court today that gardaí were seeking the court's protection over how the device was deployed.

Giving evidence, a senior garda said “this was the first case in the history of the state” in which tracking devices had been mentioned.

He said there were two aspects to using such devices under the Criminal Justice Surveillance Act 2009. These were the deployment of a tracking device and the “who, where and when it was deployed”.

The senior garda, whose name and rank cannot be published, said disclosure of the “who, where and when it was deployed” would endanger the lives of not only members of An Garda Síochána but also the Revenue Commissioners and other persons who use tracking devices under the act.

He said particular electronic systems were used by the devices and An Garda Síochána needed to preserve that knowledge for future operations and for the preservation of state security.

“I would suggest we need to preserve that knowledge from the IRA ... and from international terrorists who use the state as a means of furthering their aims.”

The senior garda said every aspect of this case was relayed back to the IRA and any methodology revealed during it would then become knowledge of the IRA.

He said the IRA was a self-styled army with its own intelligence cell and all aspects of this case were being fed back into the organisation. He asked the court to protect garda methodology so it wouldn't become knowledge of the IRA.

Much of today's proceedings was taken up with applications to disclose previously redacted material relating to garda surveillance and information provided by Mr Cullen to gardaí.

The non-jury court will rule tomorrow afternoon on the applications to disclose previously redacted material.

Last Thursday the court ruled that the professional names and addresses of eleven garda witnesses from the National Surveillance Unit be provided to the defence but ordered that members of the public be excluded from court during the officers' testimony.

The court also ordered that the officers' entire evidence must not be published so as to protect to protect the unit's methodology.

Outlining the courts' reasons for its ruling, presiding judge Ms Justice Deirdre Murphy, said there was "genuine and valid" concern that future surveillance operations could be affected without the court's protection.

“Ireland is a small country,” Ms Justice Murphy said. “What is known to one can quickly disseminate to many.”

She said “the state should have the capacity to gather intelligence on those who wish to do the state harm.”

The full hearing is expected to begin tomorrow afternoon before Judges Margaret Heneghan and Cormac Dunne with Ms Justice Deirdre Murphy presiding.