R v Bell (Ivor Malachy)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] NICC 21 |
| Date | 19 December 2018 |
| Court | Crown Court (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2018] NICC 21
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: COL10752
Delivered: 19/12/2018
IN THE CROWN COURT SITTING AT BELFAST
________
THE QUEEN
-v-
IVOR MALACHY BELL
________
COLTON J
Background
[1] The defendant faces two counts on the indictment as follows.
Count 1 – Encouraging persons to murder.
The particulars of that count are that between 31 October 1972 and 1 January
1973 the defendant encouraged persons not before the court to murder
Jean McConville, contrary to section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861 and common law.
Count 2 – Endeavouring to persuade persons to murder.
The particulars of that count are that between 31 October 1972 and 1 January
1973 the defendant endeavoured to persuade persons not before the court to
murder Jean McConville contrary to section 4 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861 and common law.
[2] The counts relate to the controversial and notorious murder of
Jean McConville. She was a widowed mother of ten who was abducted in front of
some of her children by paramilitaries, murdered and secretly buried on a beach in
the Republic of Ireland.
[3] The evidence upon which the counts are founded has also been the subject of
public controversy. The prosecution is based on audio interviews said to have been
conducted in Northern Ireland by Anthony McIntyre with the defendant. The
recordings are part of what have become known as the “Boston Tapes” which were
part of an oral history project conducted via Boston College in the United States of
2
America whereby persons involved in the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland gave oral
accounts of their involvement. The tapes were collated under what was refer red to
as “the Belfast project” which was housed at the John J Burns Library of Rare Books
and Special Collections at Boston College. The Director of the project was the well-
known journalist and writer, Ed Maloney. McIntyre is a former IRA member and
was one of the researchers on the project. Interviewees entered into “donation
agreements” with Boston College whereby it was agreed that access to the tapes and
transcripts of the interviews would not be released until after their death except in
cases where they provided prior written approval following consultation with the
Burns Librarian, Boston College. After the death of any interviewee the ultimate
power of release rested exclusively with the Librarian.
[4] In order to guard against unauthorised disclosure of the tapes, interviewers
and interviewees signed confidentiality agreements forbidding them from disclosing
the existence or scope of the project without the permission of Boston College. The
agreement also required the use of a coding system to maintain the anonymity of
interviewees and provided that only the Burns Librarian and the Director would
have access to the key identifying the interviewees.
[5] The PSNI obtained access to the “Boston Tapes” after protracted legal
proceedings in the USA.
[6] Part of the audio material includes interviews between the interviewer
identifying himself as Anthony McIntyre and “Z”. The prosecution case is that Z is
the defendant. McIntyre is not a prosecution witness. The prosecution purport to
identify Z by way of forensic voice analysis together with corroborating evidence to
include the defendant’s birth certificate, marriage certificate and decree nisi in
relation to that marriage which the prosecution say supports the contention that Z is
the person interviewed.
[7] In the course of the interviews Z speaks about his involvement in the
Provisional IRA at the time of Jean McConville’s murder. He refers to conversations
he had with two men he identifies as senior IRA members who were advocating the
murder of Jean McConville because she was alleged to be informing on the
Provisional IRA to the security forces.
[8] In the course of the interviews Z distances himself from any direct
involvement in the murder but says that “the fact is I was on the brigade staff and
there is collective responsibility and you can’t walk away from that”. Later he says
in relation to the murder “I said whatever is decided I will back that up”. He says
that he disagreed with the proposal to bury the deceased and that if he had known
she had children he would have said not to do it.
To continue reading
Request your trial