Sunday Business Post Editorial Monday August 11, 2003 McKevitt: little cause for acclaim  The acclaim that greeted the conviction of Michael McKevitt on charges of directing terrorism and membership of an unlawful organisation must not distract attention from serious concerns about the methods and means of the prosecution.  McKevitt's association with violent paramilitary activity and rejection of the peace process make him a pariah in modern Ireland. Pariah he may be, but his right to a fair trial, in which basic rights are safeguarded, must be defended. Various commentators lined up last week to opine that the state had achieved a satisfactory result in the first test of draconian legislation enacted in the wake of the Omagh bombing atrocity.  More mature, considered reflection would lead to radically different conclusions.  McKevitt's prosecution focuses attention on the Special Criminal Court. While not calling into question the work of the non-jury court, the chances of conviction rise markedly where there is no jury. Added to this, the provisions of the Offences Against the State Acts allow evidence to be admitted that would not be permitted under the rules of evidence in a conventional jury trial. The post-Omagh 1998 legislation also restricted the right to silence and enables a court to draw adverse inferences about the accused where he fails to answer any question material to the investigation.  The 1998 Act also obliges the defence to give the prosecution details of all witnesses that it plans to call. Also, the Act created the new offence of "directing an unlawful organisation", but does not define what is meant by "directing". In its prosecution under the 1998 Act, the state relied on the evidence of David Rupert and the opinion of a Garda chief superintendent. Questions about Rupert's credibility and background were examined in great detail by this newspaper. They were legitimate matters for journalistic inquiry, but seem to have escaped the notice of other media. Rupert, whose extraordinarily chequered background included an adjudication of bankruptcy, was paid $1 million by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for his information about the Real IRA. While the court distinguished Rupert from a supergrass or informer, describing him as a "contracted and paid agent of the FBI" and as a "witness under protection", Rupert could hardly be seen as a pristine witness. The fact that he was paid raised the most basic questions about his independence and credibility.  Various procedural controversies also dogged the proceedings, with the defence claiming that vital documents had not been made available. The court later denied a defence application to stay the indictment on the basis of non-disclosure. Although the court ruled that recalling Rupert could remedy the difficulty, this never took place. McKevitt's dismissal of his legal team and withdrawal from the proceedings cast a further shadow over the events in the Special Criminal Court.  This was far from the finest hour for our judicial system. The circumstances of this verdict by a jury-less court where the essential principles of our legal system have been fundamentally altered are no cause for acclaim.  comment@sbpost.ie