A Dream of Death Read online

  Critically, all the interviews proposed by the French police team had to be conducted on a voluntary basis – the French could not compel anyone to participate in the planned question-and-answer sessions in Ireland. The interviews would also be videotaped in case they were required for any future court proceedings. Over two weeks, the French team interviewed a total of 30 people. Among those interviewed were Jules Thomas and two of her daughters. Mr Bailey had offered to be interviewed but his offer was not taken up by the French investigators.

  The French forensic experts focused on the garda murder file itself. Their priority was the 200 exhibits gathered by detectives between 1996 and 1998, which were still in storage at Bandon Garda Station. Unfortunately, there were problems over the preservation of that evidence that would later become painfully apparent.

  ***

  Since their first arrest, both Ian Bailey and Jules Thomas had complained about their treatment at the hands of certain gardaí in west Cork. Ultimately, these complaints crystallised into two forms of action – the High Court civil action for alleged wrongful arrest and a more detailed complaint to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission over the alleged behaviour of some officers involved in the du Plantier investigation. As 2011 drew to a close, at the same time that the French investigative team were assessing the murder file, Mr Bailey formally lodged this complaint to GSOC. He clearly hoped that a GSOC probe would be a major plank in his defence against a French prosecution. If GSOC found any corroboration of his claims that the original garda investigation against him was flawed, it would dramatically undermine a French action, which would be largely based on the same garda file.

  9

  EXTRADITION BID

  The cramped confines of the Supreme Court provided one of the most clear-cut legal victories Mr Bailey ever enjoyed in Ireland. Watching him arrive at the Four Courts that damp morning of 1 March 2012, flanked by Jules Thomas and Frank Buttimer, I was struck by how his entire life had been consumed by the legal battle over Sophie’s death.

  Minutes later, Mr Bailey had closed his eyes and a faint smile crossed his face as the Supreme Court rejected the French bid for his extradition. It was a unanimous ruling – and some of the commentary by the judges was devastating in their assessment of the investigation and, in its turn, the decision by the French to pursue a European Arrest Warrant for the British journalist.

  Outside the Four Courts complex, Mr Bailey gave a brief press conference. The poet’s first public reaction to his Supreme Court victory was poignant – he paid an emotional tribute to Ms Thomas, who had stood beside him despite the tumult of the previous 16 years. Immaculately dressed in a blue blazer, white shirt and paisley tie, Mr Bailey looked tired and drawn – but relieved that he would not face extradition to France. Facing a crowd of reporters, photographers and TV crews, he insisted on paying tribute to her before referencing the importance of the Supreme Court ruling.

  I want to stress my appreciation to Jules, who has stood by me through thick and thin, and to our family, friends and supporters in west Cork and further afield. This has obviously been a very trying time for me [and Jules] – I would like to thank the Supreme Court for their considered and prompt determination of this matter. On a personal note I am obviously relieved that this part of the proceedings is over – there are many stages and matters still to be dealt with and for that reason I won’t be making any further statement.

  Ms Thomas declined to make any comment to the assembled reporters. She studiously ignored the cameras of the photographers and TV crews. Similarly, she had remained silent through the hour-long hearing before the Supreme Court, when the extradition dismissal had been delivered.

  Mr Bailey stressed to the reporters just how difficult the EAW proceedings had been for him. ‘It has been hell,’ he said bluntly. ‘It has been very hard, very hard – on Jules in particular. You wouldn’t be able to believe the hell we have been put through by this awfulness. We are now going to talk about where we go from here.’

  Asked by one journalist whether he had any comment to make for the family of Ms du Plantier in France, Mr Bailey declined: ‘I do not at this stage, no.’ Mr Buttimer urged the assembled media to consider what his client had endured. ‘You have absolutely no idea the kind of life Mr Bailey and his partner Jules Thomas have had to lead, not just because of the extradition but because of the fifteen-year period during which he has been wrongly associated with this crime. His life has been intolerably difficult.’

  Mr Buttimer pointedly confirmed that Mr Bailey would now be pressing ahead with his High Court action against the State for wrongful arrest. That action had been unavoidably delayed while the French extradition request was dealt with by the High Court and then the Supreme Court. Mr Buttimer also said that answers now needed to be provided over some of the disturbing elements of the investigation highlighted just minutes earlier by the Supreme Court. ‘There have been inquiries into this case heretofore – those inquiries have been, in my humble opinion, non-productive. What has surprised me is the political silence to events which have been clearly laid out in the court and which are now in the public domain. I don’t think it is for citizens to make calls in circumstances like this – this is a matter for those in authority to take stock of what has happened and take a serious look at the various issues concerning this case.’

  Mr Buttimer was pointedly referencing the original 44-page report of the garda investigation into Sophie’s killing that, in 2001, was central to ruling out a prosecution in Ireland. That report by the DPP had clearly carried enormous weight with the Supreme Court judges. Prepared by a solicitor in the DPP’s office, Robert Sheehan, the report didn’t just criticise the garda investigation as much as demolish it – and erase any suggestion that Mr Bailey might be charged. In a hammer blow to the original garda investigation, it had described the west Cork probe as ‘thoroughly flawed and prejudiced’.

  It detailed a total lack of forensic evidence against the Englishman and what one DPP official called the ‘unsafe practices’ that some gardaí engaged in during the high-profile murder inquiry – including a claim that at least one garda offered cash, clothes and drugs to a vulnerable drug user in exchange for information about Mr Bailey. The report also criticised garda for arresting Jules Thomas despite a specific instruction from the DPP not to do so.

  Mr Buttimer considered the report, which had been disclosed to Mr Bailey’s legal team on the instructions of the Attorney General in advance of the Supreme Court hearing, to be of paramount importance. This was because it was so critical of the garda case file. Crucially, that report also singled out the actions of Mr Bailey as consistent with those of an innocent party and that there was effectively no evidence against him in relation to the matter. Mr Bailey’s legal team also believed that the report added weight to their consistent claim that there had been a conspiracy against their client.

  That DPP report would be a catalyst for Mr Bailey’s long-signalled action against the State for wrongful arrest. While he had indicated the action as early as 2007, the case had been mired in logistical delays and postponements. Based on what had been disclosed as part of the Supreme Court extradition process, that High Court action would now be prioritised.

  The Supreme Court didn’t pull its punches over the implications of the internal DPP report. It was described as ‘dramatic and shocking’. Supreme Court Judge Adrian Hardiman said it was now open to the new DPP, Claire Loftus, to decide what criminal charges, if any, should be brought against the unnamed gardaí who allegedly tried to apply political pressure to the DPP to bring about a murder prosecution.

  The five judges of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Mrs Justice Susan Denham, unanimously overturned the earlier High Court decision to allow Mr Bailey’s extradition through the enforcement of the French EAW. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr Bailey should not be surrendered to France. The court pointed out that no decision to put Mr Bailey on trial had been taken by the French authorities in 2011 or 2012
– such a decision by French authorities was required under Irish law to allow someone to be extradited.

  Four of the five judges also ruled that he could not be extradited because the offence had been committed outside France. France would not be obliged to surrender a non-Irish citizen to Ireland in similar circumstances. Under Irish law, Section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, ensures that a person cannot be surrendered for the purposes of investigation. In addition, a court shall refuse to surrender a person if it is satisfied that a decision to charge the person has not been made.

  Chief Justice Denham said the legal situation was quite clear:

  [It] is clear that a decision has been made equivalent to charge the appellant. However, no further decision has been made. The appellant is sought for a criminal investigation – for the investigation procedure in France – and no decision has yet been made in France to try him for the murder. Consequently, he may not be surrendered in accordance with Section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.

  Justice Adrian Hardiman was even more scathing in his assessment of the matter, pointing out that, despite several reviews by gardaí and the DPP, no evidence to warrant a prosecution against Mr Bailey was ever identified. ‘Mr Bailey has been very thoroughly investigated in Ireland in connection with the death of Madame du Plantier. There was certainly, as will be seen, no lack of enthusiasm to prosecute him if the facts suggested that there was evidence against him. He has been subjected to arrest and detention for the purpose of questioning,’ he said.

  ‘He has voluntarily provided, at the request of the Gardaí, forensic samples which have failed to yield incriminating evidence. The fruit of the investigation has been considered not once, but several times by the DPP, who has concluded and reiterated that there is no evidence to warrant a prosecution against him.’ This, Mr Justice Hardiman argued, was very significant.

  Mr Bailey was awarded his costs not just for the Supreme Court hearing but also for the earlier High Court ruling on the EAW. It was a landmark victory that had enormous implications – the most important of which was that the French authorities, without a conviction, would conceivably have no way of overcoming such a clear-cut Supreme Court ruling. The accuracy of this view would shortly be proved by the fate of a second French EAW.

  ***

  The Supreme Court ruling was a huge setback for Ms du Plantier’s family and for ASSOPH. Their greatest concern was now focused on the long-term implications of the decision and whether it could be challenged or overturned at any stage in the future. Sophie’s parents were devastated by the ruling.

  Their solicitor, Alain Spilliaert, admitted at the time the family was ‘shocked and frustrated’ by the stance of the Supreme Court in Ireland. The elderly couple had opted not to attend the Four Courts for the ruling and were ‘very upset’ when they were informed of the outcome at their Paris home. ‘Time is our enemy now because of the age of Sophie’s parents and their long wait for justice,’ he said. ‘It is a very big shock for us – it is a step backwards because we were very hopeful, given that the High Court had supported the extradition last year. We were confident – but this is very disappointing. We will have to wait and see what happens next.’

  Sophie’s parents had visited Ireland the month before, February, to attend a special memorial Mass in Goleen for their daughter. They had planned to visit the previous December to mark the fifteenth anniversary of her death, but Marguerite Bouniol’s health had ruled out the trip until two months later. That February, in keeping with their tradition, they laid a wreath of white lilies at the Celtic cross memorial that marks the precise spot where their daughter’s body was found. The December visits had become increasingly painful for the elderly couple. ‘It is very difficult for them … you can understand perfectly why they do not come [to Ireland] before Christmas,’ Mr Spilliaert explained. ‘They will travel to west Cork in the new year and will remember Sophie. They are still hopeful of a positive outcome to their battle for justice.’

  A friend of the elderly couple, former French consul in Cork Françoise Letellier admitted that the couple’s major fear now was that they would not live to see justice done for Sophie. ‘They are really old now and worried that they will die without their daughter’s killer being brought to justice,’ she said.

  ***

  From Mr Bailey’s point of view, it was clear what would happen next – he would move ahead with his High Court civil action against the State for alleged wrongful arrest. His partner, Jules Thomas, was also taking a similar action. Mr Bailey’s formal complaint to GSOC would also proceed. The GSOC complaint – like the High Court case – had been overshadowed by the Supreme Court challenge.

  There was also a suggestion that a third action could arise via an inquiry into some of the revelations as part of the Supreme Court hearing on the extradition matter, in particular the criticisms of the garda investigation and the case file.

  It seemed that the pending High Court action for wrongful arrest would prove even more dramatic than the Supreme Court hearing. The journalist had complained of ‘breath-taking wrongdoing’ by State officials, and it was apparent that Marie Farrell, once the ‘star witness’ for the newspapers in the 2003 Cork Circuit Court libel action, would now be a key witness for Mr Bailey.

  ***

  Almost nine months after the Supreme Court rejection of the French extradition bid, Sophie’s parents highlighted the scale of their disappointment in the Irish judicial system. In a hard-hitting interview for the Sunday Independent, Marguerite Bouniol said they viewed the ruling as an insult to their daughter’s memory.

  [It was] as if the murder had never happened. We are very sad. We have been waiting for so long and we have been used to seeing things progress. But nothing happened, once more. We do not see any end to it. We were hoping a lot after the High Court decision. All of a sudden last year we were faced with that stunning [Supreme Court] decision.

  Our daughter was murdered, and it is as if nothing had happened. Sophie loved Ireland. We will never give up. She was so happy here that we have to pay tribute to her by coming every year. We can never do enough for our daughter. We are not going to give up our hopes.

  Those hopes were now entirely focused on the investigation being directed by Magistrate Patrick Gachon and his Paris police team. ASSOPH officials acknowledged that, after the Supreme Court ruling in Ireland, a trial in Paris would not now take place before 2014 at the earliest as the French needed time to fully consider the Supreme Court ruling and potential actions flagged by Mr Bailey as a consequence of it.

  ***

  For Mr Bailey, the Supreme Court victory marked a turning of the tide. In February 2013 he celebrated another boost with his receipt of a Master of Law degree from UCC. There were few doubts about his area of interest in his legal studies. His 25,000-word thesis was entitled ‘Policing the Police – Garda Accountability in Ireland’. The master’s degree came three years after he received a Bachelor of Civil Law degree from the university, where he had begun his studies in 2007.

  Two months later, Mr Bailey delivered a keynote legal address at a special event in west Cork. It was made clear several weeks before the event at Skibbereen’s West Cork Hotel that journalists and photographers were more than welcome to attend. As it transpired, almost one-quarter of the total attendance of 30 people were members of the media. The month before, Mr Bailey had even offered his legal opinion on the government’s controversial new property tax via RTÉ’s Liveline programme.

  Hosted by the West Cork Philosophical Society, the event was focused on Ireland’s post-Celtic boom plight. Journalists present were told, politely but firmly, that while questions would be welcomed at the end of the address, all queries in respect of Mr Bailey’s ongoing legal issues in both Ireland and France would be declined.

  Mr Bailey’s speech was an impassioned defence of the Irish judiciary in their stand-off with the government over various controversial policies in respect of
the economic collapse and attempted recovery.

  Increasingly the ordinary man, woman and child, supposedly guaranteed so many rights by Bunreacht na hÉireann, are increasingly penalised and victimised by their own government at the command, behest and diktat of that absentee landlord – our new European technocratic masters, ‘the troika’ of the IMF, ECB and EU – many of whose number are unelected and ultimately answer to no other power or authority than that of Mammon. Going, going, gone are an increasing number of services, safeguards and supports which had been assumed as bastions and dependable norms of our civilised social democratic system and society. Rural banks have been closing by the dozen, rural garda barracks are being closed, public services reduced and child and carers’ benefits, despite promises to the contrary, and the principles of Article 45, have been cut, along with a range of basic services.

  Mr Bailey said the ECB and IMF had ‘a tendril-like grasp’ on the economies of sovereign states like Ireland. He argued that the real culprit for Europe’s economic meltdown and the Euro crisis was the European Central Bank.

  Reckless and negligent lending to the feral and largely unregulated Irish banking sector by the ECB resulted in a disastrous over-inflation of property prices and real estate, which in turn led to the crash and the subsequent pledging by Taoiseach Brian Cowen and the late Brian Lenihan and others of the State’s pension reserves to underwrite private equity debts to ensure senior bond holders were not to lose out.

  Mr Bailey said that developments in countries like Ireland heralded a grim new era.

  What we are witnessing in Europe in general, and in Ireland in particular, is the dawning of an age of regression, retrenchment and welfare austerity, which will lead to significant reductions in wealth redistribution, while the earnings and revenues of future generations have effectively been mortgaged to pay the gambling debts of others.