Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AN IRISHMAN WHOSE conviction for trying to smuggle arms from Lithuania to the Real IRA was overturned is to face a retrial.
Michael Campbell was originally sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2011 but the conviction was overturned last October when an appeals court cited a lack of evidence.
But an expanded seven judge panel of the Lithuanian Supreme Court have now ordered a retrial, saying that it is “necessary to assess all the peculiarities of the case”.
Campbell has long insisted he was framed by British intelligence and the appeals court last October had said that there was no evidence linking him with the Real IRA.
In the latest twist in the case, the Supreme Court panel said that the appeals court gave a “contradictory” assessment of intelligence witnesses.
“The panel decided to annul the verdict of 2 October, 2013, and refer the case to an appeals court,” judge Gintaras Goda said, reading the verdict.
The 41-year-old Campbell, who currently lives in Ireland, did not come to Vilnius for verdict.
His lawyers and prosecutor did not appear either, and they could not be immediately reached for a comment.
“The court of appeals groundlessly downgraded part of evidence and by giving priority to testimony of the acquitted person,” prosecutor Gedgaudas Norkunas told the court in a hearing last month.
Campbell’s lawyer Ingrida Botyriene rejected the prosecutor’s arguments, telling the court that “provoked activity cannot be recognised as criminal”.
Campbell went on trial in August 2009 after having been arrested in a January 2008 sting in Vilnius, where he met a Lithuanian agent posing as an arms dealer. He denied being a member of the Real IRA.
Campbell’s brother Liam was one of four Real IRA leaders found liable by a civil court for a 1998 Omagh bombing that killed 29 people.
- Additional reporting by © – AFP 2014
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Shane on every Irish MEP who voted down these amendments, I’d wager all of their salaries none of them can adequately explain what they were voting on, the possible consequences of the vote or even why they voted how they did
*Shame
I doubt half of them even read the whole bill.
How can we find out who voted and what way they voted?
…they didn’t read it cos Fidelma forgot the Whiffy code. again….
After she was R/Fraped on Facebook
As long as I can still see the sexy ladies tis grand!!
Laying the groundwork for TTIP…
You certainly hit the nail on the head with that one.
The US just signed the Cisa Cybersecurity bill yesterday …27 October
Cisa would “allow ‘voluntary’ sharing of heretofore private information with the government, allowing secret and ad hoc privacy intrusions in place of meaningful consideration of the privacy concerns of all Americans,” the professors wrote.
The data in question would come from private industry, which mines everything from credit card statements to prescription drug purchase records to target advertising and tweak product lines. Indeed, much of it is detailed financial and health information the government has never had access to in any form. The bill’s proponents said the data would be “anonymized”.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/cisa-cybersecurity-bill-senate-vote
I think we’ll all end up partying like it’s 1984 sooner than anyone could imagine.
Sounds like the Eurocrats really thought this one through….not
The internet was bad enough with a small number of companies buying up everything in site but its rightly f##cked now. This only favours big business. Just a few fig leaves thrown in to make it seem reasonable.
Amazing the admission from MEPs that they voted for full package as they were so keen to get the, voter popular, roaming free charges in place. Incredibly short sighted, as for the comment from KevJ that it would be amazing if “half of them read the bill” – not a hope in hell. From experience the number of those MEP who read the bill would be somewhere in the region of a dozen or so.
Most of the MEPs would have been handed a sheet from their EP political groups. On the sheet is the title of the legislation being voted on then a series of numbers (indicating the amendment) and ‘guidance’ from the parties on whether to Yes, No or Abstain.
have your say