A defence barrister in an alleged historic terrorism case dating back 36 years has contended that as the door came down “Indiana Jones-style” on legacy cases, the prosecution “slipped under and emptied their satchel of any loose cases kicking around.”
Arthur John MacNally (71), from Minadinna Road, Sixmilecross, Co Tyrone, faces two counts each of attempted murder and hijacking, causing and attempting to cause an explosion, possessing explosives and firearms, robbery and being a member of the IRA.
It’s alleged on January 20 1987, MacNally hijacked a car and allegedly robbed a branch of Ulster Bank of £875.50.
This was followed by the attempted murder of two men, one named as Soldier A, and an attempt to cause an explosion by an improvised device.
The case first case before Dungannon Magistrates Court for immediate committal to trial in August 2023, but this did not proceed.
The defence previously expressed, “Grave, fundamental concerns around the structural integrity of this proposed prosecution.”
The defence described MacNally as a retired father of four who was previously in prison but since his release in 1979 has never been back.
“He is a peaceful, law-abiding, very well-respected member of his community for whom this prosecution has caused great distress and concern,” said the defence.
At a hearing on Wednesday, a prosecuting barrister said, “We say the case is ready to move to Crown Court but the defence will be making an Abuse of Process application which has been outstanding for some time.”
Defence counsel replied, “It’s not an overly straightforward matter and it was anticipated points would be illuminated in the awaited judgment in the Court of Appeal around legacy matters. That piece of the jigsaw is needed.”
The court heard the earliest availability for the Abuse of Process to be heard is May 2025.
The defence claimed: “It seems as the door was coming down Indiana Jones-style, the prosecution slipped under and emptied their satchel of any loose cases kicking around. That approach leads to certain difficulties, exacerbated by the UK Government who introduced legislation effectively to protect their own combatants. That type of manipulation of the process must be looked at closely.”
Responding, prosecution counsel said, “The court has heard this on many occasions and we still await the application. Any outstanding material from the Court of Appeal around the Legacy Bill should not hold up this case. We haven’t moved any further.”
The case was relisted for September 25.