A Dream of Death Page 24

  It has been a nightmare for him, pure and simple. It has been incredibly distressing. I do not know how he has managed to survive over the years. This is just the latest, but one of the worst moments of his life, insofar as he has been caught up in this nightmare.

  I truly do not know how he has managed to deal with these extremely difficult matters, but I will continue to support the man and I hope people out there have an understanding of just what has been done to him. And what has been done to the criminal justice system of this independent country.

  The French will now return to this country to seek his unlawful removal for the third time, and that will be fully resisted by us. Ian Bailey never expected to receive what we would understand to be justice in the French jurisdiction. This is a French colonial law, in existence for 200 years when France was a colonial power – where France claims to have jurisdiction over the entire world, as if the criminal justice systems of democracies such as Ireland are not fit for purpose.

  It is a gross insult to our independence as a country, to the independence of our criminal justice system and to the independence of our public prosecutor. He doesn’t have any rights in France, we have to just react to what is next to happen. It is a grotesque miscarriage of justice.

  Having dominated headlines in both the Saturday and Sunday papers, the trial continued to generate coverage in both Ireland and France for the next fortnight. Newspapers and magazines carried detailed analysis pieces while radio and TV broadcast programmes offered overviews of all the dramatic events since December 1996.

  On 12 June, the Paris court dealt with the subsidiary matter of costs and fines in relation to the week-long murder trial. Under French law, to accelerate the judicial process and ease the burden on victims’ families, compensation can be paid out in advance as part of what is known as a ‘civil action within criminal proceedings’. Having been convicted by the Cour d’assises, Mr Bailey would now face a civil fallout from the verdict.

  Magistrate Aline, in a summary ruling, ordered Mr Bailey to pay a total of €225,000 in damages to the French state and to Sophie’s family. More than half of the money – some €115,000 – would go to compensate a state guarantee fund for victims of terrorism and other offences, which advanced the payment to Sophie’s family on the foot of a court order in March 2013.

  It was the same state-operated fund that was used to aid the multiple victims of the French terror attacks, including the November 2015 Paris nightclub attacks and the July 2016 truck attack in Nice. Almost 220 people died in the combined attacks while a further 600-plus people were injured.

  Damages totalling a further €110,000 were awarded against Mr Bailey to seven of Sophie’s family members, with the bulk of the money going to her son and her parents. Her brothers, aunt and uncle were also named in an 11 June ‘civil judgment’. The court ruled that Mr Bailey now had 10 years to make the payment. After this date, the award would become unenforceable.

  Few doubted, as explained by the Bouniols’s lawyer, Alain Spilliaert, that the award was nothing more than a symbolic order by the court. He stressed that the French state did not expect either to recoup its €115,000 advance payment or for the family to receive the extra €110,000 awarded. But, he insisted, the award was ‘important from a psychological point of view’.

  Under the terms of the ruling, €25,000 each was awarded to Georges and Marguerite Bouniol as well as Pierre-Louis Baudey-Vignaud. Sophie’s brothers, Bertrand and Stéphane Bouniol, and her aunt, Marie-Madeleine Opalka, were awarded €10,000 each. Her uncle, Jean-Pierre Gazeau, was awarded €5,000.

  Explaining the ruling, a court spokesperson said the decision was ‘sovereign’ and based on applications made by the family and various supporting documents. The appeal for the €110,000 in extra compensation was made after the guilty verdict had been handed down on 31 May.

  Magistrate Aline ruled that the court held Mr Bailey ‘entirely responsible’ for the injury sustained by Sophie’s family. The ruling did not spare the journalist, by describing him as being ‘on the run’ and currently ‘wanted’ by the court. It found there had been ‘actual and certain’ harm inflicted on the Bouniol family. This harm, it found, arose ‘directly from the acts for which Mr Bailey was convicted’.

  The case and the subsequent rulings dominated headlines in France to such an extent that the July issue of Marie Claire magazine gave front-page coverage to an interview with Pierre-Louis Baudey-Vignaud. Other magazines gave similar coverage to the trial and its aftermath.

  Back in west Cork, Mr Bailey was quick to respond to the French ruling and the financial award against him. A close source to the journalist indicated he had ‘absolutely no intention of paying anything’. It quickly became clear that the French civil award had absolutely no status under Irish law and could not be enforced.

  But it was criminal rather than civil matters on which everyone in France and Ireland was now focused. The core issue was whether the French court conviction would have any impact on Ireland’s extradition stance in respect of Mr Bailey. Would the French now demand an extradition on the basis of the Paris conviction? More important, what would Ireland do with such an application?

  The journalist’s concern was clearly focused on what the French would attempt with their third EAW. Although extradition attempts had been defeated twice in the Irish courts, none had been levelled on foot of a criminal conviction in a French court. In one conversation, Mr Bailey had warned me that ‘The knock on the door could now come at any time.’

  Others weren’t so sure that action was imminent. It would be unprecedented in European law for an EU member state to seek the extradition of a person from another EU member state for a criminal conviction in the first member state over a crime that had occurred in the second member state. In European judicial terms, it had all the potential to prove a legal minefield. The European Court of Human Rights challenge was also a complicating factor for both Dublin and Paris.

  Some legal experts warned that France and Ireland were now heading into totally uncharted European judicial waters. Cork barrister William Bulman said it was impossible to predict what could happen next:

  The system of justice is also very different in that Ireland is a Common Law Country and France is a Civil Law System. The function of the judiciary in the two jurisdictions is different.

  Mr Bailey had been asked to travel to Paris and voluntarily stand trial in which he refused as his legal team in Ireland held the view that Mr Bailey would not receive a fair trial in Paris. When the French authorities failed to extradite Mr Bailey and Mr Bailey refused to voluntarily travel to Paris a trial commenced in Paris in Mr Bailey’s absence. In June 2019 Mr Bailey was convicted of murder by a Paris court in his absence.

  It also raises the question how would the Irish courts deal with the matter as there is now a fundamental change in circumstances as the French authorities are no longer looking to put Mr Bailey on trial but have proceeded to try him in his absence and have convicted him. The Irish State has found itself very much in uncharted waters.

  The question now has to be posed by the Irish State, and in turn the judicial system, as to what should happen Mr Bailey next? In law, Ian Bailey was convicted of murder in another state and it has been argued by his legal team that it was a show trial, which they did not engage in. But should the decision of the French court be ignored? Is there merit in the argument to actually arrest Mr Bailey and bring him before the High Court and let the Irish court determine whether or not it was a show trial?

  Should the Irish courts extradite Mr Bailey to France, who then would have a retrial as set out in French law? These are fundamental questions that need to be addressed as the current situation is unsatisfactory, as the extradition cloud now hangs over Mr Bailey once again. He is a prisoner in this jurisdiction without ever being convicted of a crime in Ireland but convicted of murder in a [second] country. This case could have far-reaching judicial and diplomatic implications for many years to come.
/>   ***

  The French judiciary issued a warrant on 21 June 2019 for the extradition of Mr Bailey.

  It was clear what the Bouniol family wanted. Sophie’s son, Pierre-Louis, was adamant that Ireland now had to respect the ruling of the French court. He also expressed confidence that Mr Bailey would end up behind bars in France. In an interview with Michael Clifford of the Irish Examiner, he predicted that Mr Bailey would eventually go to jail.

  That man killed my mother 22 years ago and this was the first trial that concentrated on the facts in either France or Ireland. So now we turn to the next step and it is clear that, one day, Ian Bailey, who killed my mother, will go to jail. Of course France will succeed in extradition. And I think Irish justice will see to that, for sure, we are brothers – Ireland and France.

  For Mr Bailey, his only option appeared to be to continue to try to live life as normally as possible – and to maintain his hope that somehow, somewhere, fresh evidence would come to light indicating who the real killer was and finally proving his long-stated innocence. He continued to attend his farmers’ market stall and sell both organic homemade pizza and books of his poetry. He socialised in Schull, Goleen and Skibbereen and attended arts events across west Cork. He also busied himself with plans for his new book of poetry. It was almost as if he was determined to show the French he was not intimidated or afraid of any forthcoming action.

  He attended the 2019 Fastnet Film Festival and spoke enthusiastically of his short film, although it was not part of the official festival programme. Entitled I Fell in Love with a Dancing Skeleton, it was inspired by New Orleans-style jazz festival costumes seen in a local parade.

  On the evening of 25 August 2019, a Sunday, reports started circulating on social media that Mr Bailey had been arrested in west Cork. I was alerted to the story within 15 minutes of the first cryptic social media posting. A social media storm soon erupted amid claims that the detention was linked to the outstanding French EAW. But it quickly became apparent that the incident had nothing whatsoever to do with France or the Paris trial.

  Mr Bailey had been detained on suspicion of drink-driving in Schull and taken to Bantry Garda Station. I rang my news editor – and a privacy issue immediately emerged. While this kind of story would be reported in the normal course of events if it involved a public figure such as a politician or a celebrity, Mr Bailey was not such a figure. He was an ordinary citizen and had the right to privacy. We decided to await developments.

  It was a course followed by numerous other newspapers that were aware of the incident, though the Irish Examiner did carry a report on the arrest the next morning, following social media speculation.

  In response to the ongoing social media claims, Mr Bailey then issued a brief statement about the incident on 26 August. In echoes of 1997, it was his public statement that effectively guaranteed that most Irish newspapers and radio stations would now report on the Schull incident.

  I can confirm that on Sunday evening last, I was stopped at a garda checkpoint outside Schull. I failed a roadside breathalyser test. At that point, I was taken to Bantry Garda Station, where I subsequently passed the electronic test. The treatment by gardaí towards me was courteous at all times.

  He declined all further comment.

  In similar echoes of 1997 and 1998 during the original garda murder investigation, any predictions of rapid developments, this time in the extradition matter, proved wide of the mark. Seven months after the Paris conviction, Mr Bailey voluntarily travelled to Dublin to attend a High Court hearing where the fresh French EAW had its first legal airing.

  Mr Justice Donald Binchy was asked on Monday, 16 December 2019 to endorse a French warrant seeking Mr Bailey’s extradition on foot of the conviction delivered by the Paris Cour de l’assises. It was a preliminary step required if the extradition was to go to a full High Court hearing.

  Mr Bailey, notified of the French application, had voluntarily decided to travel to Dublin rather than stay in west Cork to await developments. As part of the EAW process, Mr Bailey had to be arrested and formally brought before the court on the EAW. Detective Sergeant Jim Kirwan of the Garda Extradition Unit had evidence of the arrest. The detective told the court he gave Mr Bailey a copy of the warrant in both English and French.

  He explained to Mr Bailey that the warrant was issued on foot of his conviction in absentia in France, for which he had been sentenced to 25 years in prison for the murder of Ms Toscan du Plantier. The detective said Mr Bailey replied to him that he understood what the proceedings were about: ‘Yes I do – I just want to say I had nothing to do with this crime.’

  Mr Bailey was remanded on bail pending a full hearing on the extradition matter, which was scheduled to take place before the High Court on 20 January 2020. Gardaí did not object to bail being issued. Detective Sergeant Kirwan acknowledged to Ronan Munro SC, who was representing Mr Bailey, that the poet had for years lived ‘very visibly in Cork’ and was ‘easy to keep an eye on’.

  Mr Munro had opposed the court endorsing the warrant and said that doing so would simply expose Mr Bailey to another abuse of process. He cited the judgment of Mr Justice Tony Hunt in the High Court in July 2017 when the second French extradition request for Mr Bailey had been dismissed as ‘an abuse of process’ in light of the 2012 Supreme Court ruling.

  However, lawyers for the State argued that the law had changed since 2017 and further pointed out that, in the two years since, Mr Bailey had been convicted of murder at a trial in Paris held in his absence. As many – including Mr Bailey himself – had predicted, the French trial and conviction would now be central to the third French EAW.

  Having listened to the arguments, Mr Justice Binchy said it was ‘appropriate’ to endorse the warrant – a move which would result in a full High Court hearing on the extradition issue. He said that not to endorse the warrant ‘would be to eliminate all arguments’ in the substantive case and that such a move ‘would be premature’. He noted two significant changes since the 2017 hearing – namely a change in the law, and the French conviction.

  The High Court hearing catapulted the case back into the headlines – not just in Ireland but across Europe. Adding to the overall impact of the story was the fact that the High Court development came just one week before the twenty-third anniversary of Ms du Plantier’s murder.

  That evening, I spoke by telephone with Mr Bailey. He insisted he was calm and relaxed about the development – something I found hard to believe. But, as well as being his usual polite self, I found him measured and somewhat philosophical about what he faced in 2020. Once again, he insisted he would ‘fight tooth and nail’ against the French extradition request and said he felt he was being ‘sacrificed’ by Ireland to the Paris authorities because of failings in the original murder investigation in west Cork.

  ‘It has been absolute hell. The tragedy here is that the French have convicted an innocent man – and the Irish [authorities] know it. This has been a nightmare that I am afraid will only end with my death. This has been a tragedy for the truth. There are people [in authority] in Ireland who are fully aware of the fact I am innocent. But those devils have remained silent,’ Mr Bailey said as he concluded our conversation.

  There were also major developments in the case in the area of publicity. Audible were in the process of finalising a number of extra follow-on episodes to their successful West Cork series. They would deal with the French trial element of the saga. Two major TV documentaries on the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case were now in the pipeline, one of which will see award-winning Irish director Jim Sheridan unveil his long-awaited documentary series on the case.

  Mr Sheridan first confirmed work on the du Plantier story while attending the 2016 Fastnet Film Festival and said he was intrigued by the high-profile case and the controversies it had generated over the previous 20 years.

  ‘We are looking at a documentary about the families of Sophie du Plantier and Ian Bailey – the whole thing. We are trying to examine a cold
case, trying to figure out what happened. I think it will be three or four documentaries. I am making it with Donal MacIntyre, the investigative journalist. He is making it for the BBC and TV3,’ the director explained.

  Mr Sheridan, a long-standing supporter of Ireland’s Innocence Project, acknowledged that justice, the presumption of innocence and fairness had been recurring themes in many of his films, such as In the Name of the Father, My Left Foot and The Field. He felt the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case offered similarly rich storytelling potential. ‘I have no flag to hold for him. Well, surely there is a situation where it is innocent until proven guilty,’ Mr Sheridan said.

  Mr MacIntyre, an award-winning investigative journalist, had been intrigued by the case for years because of his close family connections to west Cork, in particular Bere Island. The combination made for an impressive documentary team. The project was strengthened still further by the involvement of Michael Sheridan, the scriptwriter who had written Death in December back in 2002.

  Mr Bailey agreed to cooperate with the project after being separately approached by Jim Sheridan and Donal MacIntyre in 2015 when his High Court action for wrongful arrest was reaching its climax and dominating national headlines.

  ‘Jim Sheridan approached me during the civil case in Dublin a few years ago and he always knew he wanted to do something but didn’t know what. Then Donal MacIntyre – a well-known international investigative journalist – also approached me. I introduced them both. Out of that has come the project which will eventually result in a documentary,’ he said.

  While no release date has been confirmed for the project, as this book was published the documentary was being considered for a premiere at the 2020 Cannes Film Festival as part of its specialist section. Hardly surprisingly, Mr Bailey has already flagged that, if the film festival participation is confirmed, he will not be in attendance.