Colin Duffy's bid to find out if legal meetings bugged
High-profile dissident republican Colin Duffy has launched High Court proceedings over an alleged failure by the State to confirm that his legal consultations are not being bugged.
The 48-year-old Lurgan man is challenging the Government for allegedly refusing to provide assurances that his meetings with his lawyers are not subject to covert surveillance.
He was granted leave to seek a judicial review of the Home Office's stance at a hearing in Belfast. Duffy, of Forest Glade in the Co Armagh town, is on bail fighting attempts to have him stand trial on charges linked to an alleged bid to kill police in Belfast.
He is one of three men accused of belonging to an IRA grouping and attempting to murder members of the PSNI. They face further counts of possessing firearms and ammunition and conspiring with to murder security force members.
The alleged offences are connected to a gun attack on a police convoy in December 2013.
Duffy, 54-year-old Alex McCrory, from Sliabh Dubh View in Belfast, and Henry Fitzsimons (47), of no fixed address, are currently resisting prosecution attempts to have them returned for trial.
In court yesterday counsel for the Secretary of State acknowledged that arguable points had been raised in the case. On that basis Lord Justices Gillen, Weatherup and Weir granted leave to apply for a full judicial review.
They listed the case for a further hearing in May, when it will be decided if the issues will be dealt with by the court or by an Investigatory Powers Tribunal set up to monitor surveillance authorised under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).
Setting out the reasons for taking the action, Duffy's lawyer, Paul Pierce of KRW Law, said: "We want an assurance that if there's covert surveillance, and that involves monitoring a person's legal consultations, that it's being properly authorised under Ripa.
"We still have concerns about the whole process because it's shrouded in secrecy, with no way of knowing how that authorisation is sought and what information is put before the surveillance commissioner, who ultimately has to make the decision to authorise bugging."