A defence solicitor has suggested the Public Prosecution Service is creating a “smokescreen” in regard to delay around the DCI John Caldwell attempted murder case.
The remarks came during a review hearing at Omagh Magistrates’ Court.
Criticism was previously levelled after it emerged a 6,000-page file had been sent to the PPS in December electronically but by last month the directing officer hadn’t looked at this, having requested it in paper format.
Eight men are currently charged with attempting to murder DCI Caldwell, who was shot on February 22 last year, while he coached a football team at the Omagh Youth Sport Centre.
Three others are accused of preparing for acts of terrorism.
After the shooting, the assailants fled in a blue Ford Fiesta, which was later found burnt out near Racolpa Road in Omagh.
They then switched to a black Mercedes, which drove to Deverney Park where they went to the rear of a house then left in a white Transit Van
The weapons used in the attack remain unaccounted for.
A number of recent disclosures included the belief of an attempted attack two weeks beforehand which stood down as the football practice had been called off.
It also emerged one of the men charged with attempted murder attended the same Omagh school as DCI Caldwell and was “aware of his routines”.
At the most recent sitting defence lawyers again sought timetables, evidence schedules and an indication as to when decisions could be expected, which the court had directed the PPS to provide.
However, this still is not available.
Prosecuting counsel advised the recent charging of an eighth person with attempted murder “has changed the timetable slightly”.
And she added: “Eleven people have been charged to date and four others reported to the PPS. Decisions in respect of the defendants will be taken collectively and the addition of the latest defendant means that cannot be done until his case file is submitted.”
She continued: “Material obtained in his latest arrest impacts on those already charged. At a conservative estimate there are expected to be 17,000 pages of evidence and that is taking some time.”
Deputy District Judge Peter Prenter enquired: “Are matters really no further on?”
The prosecution replied: “It’s possible to provide a schedule of evidence. This is an ongoing investigation. There will be nothing before the end of May and by then I will hopefully be able to provide a fuller update.”
The defence said: “It’s over 13 months and we are now being told a decision hasn’t even been made and it doesn’t stop there. We aren’t even being given a schedule.”
Correcting this, the prosecution, said: “None of the accused have been in custody for 13 months, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.”
The defence replied: “It’s 13 months from the incident but some accused have been in custody for a substantial period. That amounts to delay and the remedy is to release all accused on bail.”
Another defence lawyer referenced the comments of Mr Justice O’Hara during High Court bail application, who expressed concerns that “not everyone suspected of involvement have been charged and people cannot be kept in custody indefinitely. Other potential defendants should not be used as a delay.”
The prosecution rejected this, adding: “Recent information paints a somewhat different picture, which links some accused to the earlier attempt. It’s impractical to separate that from those already charged.”
But the defence insisted: “Indication of the arrest of a further person and the necessity of keeping that with the main investigation is a smokescreen to cover unconscionable delay. Bail is not a gift, it’s a fundamental right.”
Judge Prenter agreed to list the matter for update on April 23, stressing: “I expect progress.”
