It is several months since I touched on the remarkable court case in Ireland in which a journalist, Ian Bailey, is suing the police and the state for conspiracy because of his wrongful arrest during a murder inquiry.
His civil action opened on 4 November 2014 and the evidence from 93 witnesses finally concluded earlier this month after 59 days of hearings at the Dublin high court.
Now, on their 63rd day in the courtroom, the long-suffering jurors are listening to the closing statements from counsel. Next week, it will be the judge’s turn to address them.
Bailey, a British citizen and a former crime reporter, was living in West Cork in December 1996 when the body of a French woman, Sophie Toscan du Plantier, was found near her holiday home.
Bailey was twice arrested during the police investigation into her murder and claimed that the Irish police force, the gardaí, conspired to manufacture evidence against him.
One of his central claims is that a shop-keeper, Marie Farrell, was pressured by police officers to implicate Bailey by giving false evidence against him.
In the latest report on the case, in the Irish Times, the judge, Mr Justice John Hedigan, said there were two key issues for the jury to consider.
First, did the gardaí conspire to get Farrell to make statements placing Bailey close to the murder scene? Second, did two gardaí conspire by threats, inducements of intimidation to get Farrell to make statements that she was being intimidated by Bailey when they knew they were false?
He outlined those issues to the jury before counsel for the garda commissioner and the state began his closing submission.
If the jury were to answer yes to either of those questions, said the judge, they would then go on to assess whether he should receive damages, and how much.
The state and garda commissioner have denied all of Bailey’s claims and do not therefore believe he is entitled to damages, including exemplary damages, over the conduct of the murder investigation.
Source: Irish Times
